Story 1: U-3 Unemployment Rate 3.5%, U-6 Unemployment Rate 6.8% and 145,000 Non-farm Payroll Jobs Created in December 2019 — Labor Participation Rate Stuck at 63.3% — Not In Labor ForceĀ 95,625,000 — Videos —
The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for December 2019 is 20.8%.
Labor Secretary on jobs report: Strong end to āextraordinary yearā
December jobs report: ‘Best labor market for workers’
CNNās King: Trumpās Booming Economy, Low Unemployment Rate A āGood Calling Cardā For 2020
47% of Americans approve of Donald Trump’s job as president
Keiser Report 1485
Bad monetary and fiscal policy is good for gold
U.S. Economic Outlook 2020: On Firmer Ground
Civilian Labor Force Level
164,556,000
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Data extracted on: January 10, 2020 (6:05:45 PM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:Ā Ā Civilian labor force
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:Ā Ā Civilian labor force
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Download:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
142267(1)
142456
142434
142751
142388
142591
142278
142514
142518
142622
142962
143248
2001
143800
143701
143924
143569
143318
143357
143654
143284
143989
144086
144240
144305
2002
143883
144653
144481
144725
144938
144808
144803
145009
145552
145314
145041
145066
2003
145937(1)
146100
146022
146474
146500
147056
146485
146445
146530
146716
147000
146729
2004
146842(1)
146709
146944
146850
147065
147460
147692
147564
147415
147793
148162
148059
2005
148029(1)
148364
148391
148926
149261
149238
149432
149779
149954
150001
150065
150030
2006
150214(1)
150641
150813
150881
151069
151354
151377
151716
151662
152041
152406
152732
2007
153144(1)
152983
153051
152435
152670
153041
153054
152749
153414
153183
153835
153918
2008
154063(1)
153653
153908
153769
154303
154313
154469
154641
154570
154876
154639
154655
2009
154210(1)
154538
154133
154509
154747
154716
154502
154307
153827
153784
153878
153111
2010
153484(1)
153694
153954
154622
154091
153616
153691
154086
153975
153635
154125
153650
2011
153263(1)
153214
153376
153543
153479
153346
153288
153760
154131
153961
154128
153995
2012
154381(1)
154671
154749
154545
154866
155083
154948
154763
155160
155554
155338
155628
2013
155763(1)
155312
155005
155394
155536
155749
155599
155605
155687
154673
155265
155182
2014
155352(1)
155483
156028
155369
155684
155707
156007
156130
156040
156417
156494
156332
2015
157030(1)
156644
156643
157060
157651
157062
156997
157172
156733
157167
157463
158035
2016
158342(1)
158653
159103
158981
158787
158973
159123
159579
159817
159734
159551
159710
2017
159647(1)
159767
160066
160309
160060
160232
160339
160690
161212
160378
160510
160538
2018
161068(1)
161783
161684
161742
161874
162269
162173
161768
162078
162605
162662
163111
2019
163142(1)
163047
162935
162546
162782
163133
163373
163894
164051
164401
164347
164556
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Employment Level
158,803,000
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:Ā Ā Employed
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Download:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
136559(1)
136598
136701
137270
136630
136940
136531
136662
136893
137088
137322
137614
2001
137778
137612
137783
137299
137092
136873
137071
136241
136846
136392
136238
136047
2002
135701
136438
136177
136126
136539
136415
136413
136705
137302
137008
136521
136426
2003
137417(1)
137482
137434
137633
137544
137790
137474
137549
137609
137984
138424
138411
2004
138472(1)
138542
138453
138680
138852
139174
139556
139573
139487
139732
140231
140125
2005
140245(1)
140385
140654
141254
141609
141714
142026
142434
142401
142548
142499
142752
2006
143150(1)
143457
143741
143761
144089
144353
144202
144625
144815
145314
145534
145970
2007
146028(1)
146057
146320
145586
145903
146063
145905
145682
146244
145946
146595
146273
2008
146378(1)
146156
146086
146132
145908
145737
145532
145203
145076
144802
144100
143369
2009
142152(1)
141640
140707
140656
140248
140009
139901
139492
138818
138432
138659
138013
2010
138438(1)
138581
138751
139297
139241
139141
139179
139438
139396
139119
139044
139301
2011
139250(1)
139394
139639
139586
139624
139384
139524
139942
140183
140368
140826
140902
2012
141584(1)
141858
142036
141899
142206
142391
142292
142291
143044
143431
143333
143330
2013
143292(1)
143362
143316
143635
143882
143999
144264
144326
144418
143537
144479
144778
2014
145150(1)
145134
145648
145667
145825
146247
146399
146530
146778
147427
147404
147615
2015
148145(1)
148045
148128
148511
148817
148816
148830
149181
148826
149246
149463
150128
2016
150621(1)
150908
151157
151006
151119
151187
151465
151770
151850
151907
152063
152216
2017
152129(1)
152368
152978
153224
153001
153299
153471
153593
154371
153779
153813
153977
2018
154486(1)
155142
155191
155324
155665
155750
155993
155601
156032
156482
156628
156825
2019
156627(1)
156866
156741
156696
156844
157148
157346
157895
158298
158544
158536
158803
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Not in Labor Force
95,625,000
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status:Ā Ā Not in labor force
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Number in thousands
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2009
80529
80374
80953
80762
80705
80938
81367
81780
82495
82766
82865
83813
2010
83349
83304
83206
82707
83409
84075
84199
84014
84347
84895
84590
85240
2011
85441
85637
85623
85603
85834
86144
86383
86111
85940
86308
86312
86589
2012
87888
87765
87855
88239
88100
88073
88405
88803
88613
88429
88836
88722
2013
88900
89516
89990
89780
89827
89803
90156
90355
90481
91708
91302
91563
2014
91563
91603
91230
92070
91938
92107
92016
92099
92406
92240
92350
92695
2015
92694
93256
93437
93205
92804
93601
93880
93924
94592
94374
94284
93901
2016
94055
93924
93665
93988
94388
94424
94497
94275
94274
94587
94989
95031
2017
94435
94479
94348
94279
94707
94725
94812
94667
94350
95388
95439
95571
2018
95712
95151
95414
95529
95579
95373
95670
96297
96212
95909
96045
95777
2019
95097
95345
95602
96147
96079
95905
95852
95538
95587
95444
95673
95625
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:Ā Ā Unemployment rate
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Percent or rate
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
4.0
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
2001
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.9
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.7
2002
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
6.0
2003
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.7
2004
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.4
5.4
2005
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
2006
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
2007
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.0
2008
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.8
7.3
2009
7.8
8.3
8.7
9.0
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.8
10.0
9.9
9.9
2010
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.8
9.3
2011
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
2012
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.8
7.7
7.9
2013
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.9
6.7
2014
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.2
6.3
6.1
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.7
5.8
5.6
2015
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.3
5.2
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.0
2016
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.7
2017
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.1
2018
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.9
2019
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
U-6 Labor Unemployment Rate
6.8%
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:Ā Ā Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Percent or rate
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
Percent/rates:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Download:
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
7.1
7.2
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.1
6.9
2001
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.9
7.8
8.1
8.7
9.3
9.4
9.6
2002
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.7
9.8
2003
10.0
10.2
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.3
10.3
10.1
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
2004
9.9
9.7
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.4
9.7
9.4
9.2
2005
9.3
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.8
8.9
9.0
8.7
8.7
8.6
2006
8.4
8.4
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
7.9
2007
8.4
8.2
8.0
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.8
2008
9.2
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.7
10.1
10.5
10.8
11.0
11.8
12.6
13.6
2009
14.2
15.2
15.8
15.9
16.5
16.5
16.4
16.7
16.7
17.1
17.1
17.1
2010
16.7
17.0
17.1
17.1
16.6
16.4
16.4
16.5
16.8
16.6
16.9
16.6
2011
16.2
16.0
15.9
16.1
15.8
16.1
15.9
16.1
16.4
15.8
15.5
15.2
2012
15.2
15.0
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.8
14.6
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.4
2013
14.6
14.4
13.8
14.0
13.8
14.2
13.8
13.6
13.5
13.6
13.1
13.1
2014
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.3
12.2
12.0
12.1
12.0
11.7
11.5
11.4
11.2
2015
11.3
11.0
10.8
10.9
10.9
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.0
9.8
10.0
9.9
2016
9.8
9.7
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.5
9.7
9.6
9.7
9.6
9.4
9.2
2017
9.3
9.1
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.3
8.0
8.0
8.1
2018
8.1
8.2
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.6
2019
8.0
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
Labor Force Participation Rate
63.3%
Series Id:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:Ā Ā Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Percent or rate
Age:Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 16 years and over
2
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2000
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
67.1
67.1
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.8
66.9
67.0
2001
67.2
67.1
67.2
66.9
66.7
66.7
66.8
66.5
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
2002
66.5
66.8
66.6
66.7
66.7
66.6
66.5
66.6
66.7
66.6
66.4
66.3
2003
66.4
66.4
66.3
66.4
66.4
66.5
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
65.9
2004
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
66.0
66.1
66.1
66.0
65.8
65.9
66.0
65.9
2005
65.8
65.9
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
2006
66.0
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.1
66.2
66.3
66.4
2007
66.4
66.3
66.2
65.9
66.0
66.0
66.0
65.8
66.0
65.8
66.0
66.0
2008
66.2
66.0
66.1
65.9
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.1
66.0
66.0
65.9
65.8
2009
65.7
65.8
65.6
65.7
65.7
65.7
65.5
65.4
65.1
65.0
65.0
64.6
2010
64.8
64.9
64.9
65.2
64.9
64.6
64.6
64.7
64.6
64.4
64.6
64.3
2011
64.2
64.1
64.2
64.2
64.1
64.0
64.0
64.1
64.2
64.1
64.1
64.0
2012
63.7
63.8
63.8
63.7
63.7
63.8
63.7
63.5
63.6
63.8
63.6
63.7
2013
63.7
63.4
63.3
63.4
63.4
63.4
63.3
63.3
63.2
62.8
63.0
62.9
2014
62.9
62.9
63.1
62.8
62.9
62.8
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.9
62.9
62.8
2015
62.9
62.7
62.6
62.8
62.9
62.7
62.6
62.6
62.4
62.5
62.5
62.7
2016
62.7
62.8
62.9
62.8
62.7
62.7
62.7
62.9
62.9
62.8
62.7
62.7
2017
62.8
62.8
62.9
63.0
62.8
62.8
62.8
62.9
63.1
62.7
62.7
62.7
2018
62.7
63.0
62.9
62.9
62.9
63.0
62.9
62.7
62.8
62.9
62.9
63.0
2019
63.2
63.1
63.0
62.8
62.9
63.0
63.0
63.2
63.2
63.3
63.2
63.2
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-20-0010
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 10, 2020
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- DECEMBER 2019
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 145,000 in December, and the unemployment
rate was unchanged at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Notable job gains occurred in retail trade and health care, while mining
lost jobs.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics.
The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry.
For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these
two surveys, see the Technical Note.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data |
| |
| Seasonally adjusted household survey data have been revised using updated seasonal |
| adjustment factors, a procedure done at the end of each calendar year. Seasonally |
| adjusted estimates back to January 2015 were subject to revision. The unemployment |
| rates for January 2019 through November 2019 (as originally published and as revised)|
| appear in table A, along with additional information about the revisions. |
|_______________________________________________________________________________________|
Household Survey Data
In December, the unemployment rate held at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons was unchanged at 5.8 million. A year earlier, the jobless rate was 3.9 percent,
and the number of unemployed persons was 6.3 million. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.1 percent), adult
women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.6 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.9 percent),
Asians (2.5 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in December.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million,
was unchanged in December and accounted for 20.5 percent of the unemployed. (See table
A-12.)
The labor force participation rate was unchanged at 63.2 percent in December. The
employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the fourth consecutive month but was
up by 0.4 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.1 million, changed
little in December but was down by 507,000 over the year. These individuals, who would
have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been
reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In December, 1.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
310,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were
not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 277,000 discouraged workers in December, down
by 98,000 from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for
them. The remaining 969,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in December
had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 145,000 in December. Notable job gains
occurred in retail trade and health care, while mining lost jobs. In 2019, payroll
employment rose by 2.1 million, down from a gain of 2.7 million in 2018. (See table B-1.)
In December, retail trade added 41,000 jobs. Employment increased in clothing and
accessories stores (+33,000) and in building material and garden supply stores (+7,000);
both industries showed employment declines in the prior month. Employment in retail trade
changed little, on net, in both 2019 and 2018 (+9,000 and +14,000, respectively).
Employment in health care increased by 28,000 in December. Ambulatory health care services
and hospitals added jobs over the month (+23,000 and +9,000, respectively). Health care
added 399,000 jobs in 2019, compared with an increase of 350,000 in 2018.
Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up in December (+40,000). The
industry added 388,000 jobs in 2019, similar to the increase in 2018 (+359,000).
Mining employment declined by 8,000 in December. In 2019, employment in mining declined
by 24,000, after rising by 63,000 in 2018.
Construction employment changed little in December (+20,000). Employment in the industry
rose by 151,000 in 2019, about half of the 2018 gain of 307,000.
In December, employment in professional and business services showed little change
(+10,000). The industry added 397,000 jobs in 2019, down from an increase of 561,000
jobs in 2018.
Employment in transportation and warehousing changed little in December (-10,000).
Employment in the industry increased by 57,000 in 2019, about one-fourth of the 2018
gain of 216,000.
Manufacturing employment was little changed in December (-12,000). Employment in the
industry changed little in 2019 (+46,000), after increasing in 2018 (+264,000).
In December, employment showed little change in other major industries, including wholesale
trade, information, financial activities, and government.
In December, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 3 cents to $28.32. Over the last 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by
2.9 percent. In December, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees, at $23.79, were little changed (+2 cents). (See tables B-3 and
B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.3
hours in December. In manufacturing, the average workweek and overtime remained at 40.5
hours and 3.2 hours, respectively. The average workweek of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees held at 33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for October was revised down by 4,000 from
+156,000 to +152,000, and the change for November was revised down by 10,000 from +266,000
to +256,000. With these revisions, employment gains in October and November combined were
14,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports
received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and
from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged
184,000 over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for January is scheduled to be released on Friday, February 7,
2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).
______________________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Upcoming Changes to Household Survey Data |
| |
| With the publication of The Employment Situation for January 2020 on February 7, |
| 2020, two not seasonally adjusted series currently displayed in Summary table |
| A--persons marginally attached to the labor force and discouraged workers--will |
| be replaced with new seasonally adjusted series. The new seasonally adjusted |
| series will be available in the BLS online database back to 1994. Not seasonally |
| adjusted data for persons marginally attached to the labor force and for |
| discouraged workers will continue to be published in table A-16. These series |
| will also be available in the BLS online database back to 1994. |
| |
| Persons marginally attached to the labor force and discouraged workers are inputs |
| into three alternative measures of labor underutilization displayed in table A-15. |
| Therefore, with the publication of The Employment Situation for January 2020, data |
| for U-4, U-5, and U-6 in table A-15 will reflect the new seasonally adjusted |
| series. Revised data back to 1994 will be available in the BLS online database. |
| Not seasonally adjusted series for the alternative measures will be unaffected. |
| |
| Beginning with data for January 2020, occupation estimates in table A-13 will |
| reflect the introduction of the 2018 Census occupation classification system into |
| the household survey. This occupation classification system is derived from the |
| 2018 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. In addition, industry |
| estimates in table A-14 will reflect the introduction of the 2017 Census industry |
| classification system, which is derived from the 2017 North American Industry |
| Classification System (NAICS). Historical data on occupation and industry will |
| not be revised. Beginning with data for January 2020, estimates will not be |
| strictly comparable with earlier years. |
| |
| Also beginning with data for January 2020, estimates of married persons will |
| include those in opposite- and same-sex marriages. Prior to January 2020, these |
| estimates included only those in opposite-sex marriages. This will affect marital |
| status estimates in tables A-9 and A-10. Historical data will not be revised. |
| |
| Also effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2020, new |
| population controls will be used in the household survey estimation process. These |
| new controls reflect the annual update of intercensal population estimates by the |
| U.S. Census Bureau. In accordance with usual practice, historical data will not |
| be revised to incorporate the new controls; consequently, household survey data |
| for January 2020 will not be directly comparable with data for December 2019 or |
| earlier periods. A table showing the effects of the new controls on the major labor |
| force series will be included in the January 2020 news release. In addition, the |
| population controls for veterans, which are derived from a Department of Veterans |
| Affairs' population model and are updated periodically, will also be updated with |
| the release of January data. |
|______________________________________________________________________________________|
______________________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Upcoming Revisions to Establishment Survey Data |
| |
| Effective with the release of The Employment Situation for January 2020 on February |
| 7, 2020, the establishment survey will revise nonfarm payroll employment, hours, |
| and earnings data to reflect the annual benchmark process and updated seasonal |
| adjustment factors. Not seasonally adjusted data beginning with April 2018 and |
| seasonally adjusted data beginning with January 2015 are subject to revision. |
| Consistent with standard practice, additional historical data may be revised as a |
| result of the benchmark process. |
|______________________________________________________________________________________|
Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data
At the end of each calendar year, BLS routinely updates the seasonal adjustment
factors for the national labor force series derived from the household survey. As
a result of this process, seasonally adjusted data for January 2015 through
November 2019 were subject to revision. (Not seasonally adjusted data were not
subject to revision.)
Table A shows the unemployment rates for January 2019 through November 2019, as
first published and as revised. The rates were unchanged for all 11 months.
Revised seasonally adjusted data for other major labor force series beginning
in December 2018 appear in table B.
More information on this year's revisions to seasonally adjusted household series
is available at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps-seas-adjustment-methodology.pdf.
Detailed information on the seasonal adjustment methodology is found at
www.bls.gov/cps/seasonal-adjustment-methodology.htm.
Historical data for the household series contained in the A tables of this news
release can be accessed at www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm. Revised historical
seasonally adjusted data are available at www.bls.gov/cps/data.htm and
https://download.bls.gov/pub/time.series/ln/.
Table A. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in 2019 and changes due to revision
January - November 2019
Month As first published As revised Change
January............. 4.0 4.0 0.0
February............ 3.8 3.8 0.0
March............... 3.8 3.8 0.0
April............... 3.6 3.6 0.0
May................. 3.6 3.6 0.0
June................ 3.7 3.7 0.0
July................ 3.7 3.7 0.0
August.............. 3.7 3.7 0.0
September........... 3.5 3.5 0.0
October............. 3.6 3.6 0.0
November............ 3.5 3.5 0.0
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table B. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age, seasonally adjusted[Numbers in thousands]
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted[Numbers in thousands]
Category
Dec.
2018
Oct.
2019
Nov.
2019
Dec.
2019
Change from:
Nov.
2019-
Dec.
2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
258,888
259,845
260,020
260,181
161
Civilian labor force
163,111
164,401
164,347
164,556
209
Participation rate
63.0
63.3
63.2
63.2
0.0
Employed
156,825
158,544
158,536
158,803
267
Employment-population ratio
60.6
61.0
61.0
61.0
0.0
Unemployed
6,286
5,857
5,811
5,753
-58
Unemployment rate
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.5
0.0
Not in labor force
95,777
95,444
95,673
95,625
-48
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.5
0.0
Adult men (20 years and over)
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.1
-0.1
Adult women (20 years and over)
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.0
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
12.6
12.3
12.0
12.6
0.6
White
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.0
Black or African American
6.6
5.5
5.6
5.9
0.3
Asian
3.3
2.8
2.6
2.5
-0.1
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
0.0
Total, 25 years and over
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.8
-0.1
Less than a high school diploma
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.2
-0.1
High school graduates, no college
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
0.0
Some college or associate degree
3.3
2.8
2.9
2.7
-0.2
Bachelor’s degree and higher
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
-0.1
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
2,892
2,691
2,804
2,686
-118
Job leavers
827
846
776
829
53
Reentrants
1,968
1,698
1,663
1,655
-8
New entrants
600
622
581
551
-30
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,117
1,978
2,026
2,065
39
5 to 14 weeks
2,007
1,747
1,753
1,730
-23
15 to 26 weeks
899
884
865
812
-53
27 weeks and over
1,311
1,259
1,219
1,186
-33
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
4,655
4,397
4,288
4,148
-140
Slack work or business conditions
2,895
2,747
2,634
2,657
23
Could only find part-time work
1,487
1,278
1,259
1,215
-44
Part time for noneconomic reasons
21,230
21,544
21,532
21,586
54
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
1,556
1,229
1,246
1,246
–
Discouraged workers
375
341
325
277
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Footnotes
(1)Ā Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2)Ā Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3)Ā The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4)Ā The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5)Ā Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P)Ā Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.
This July 16, 2019, file photo shows the Capitol Dome in Washington. The U.S. budget deficit through the first three months of this budget year is up 11.8% from the same period a year ago, putting the country on track to record its first $1 trillion deficit in eight years. The Treasury Department said Monday, Jan. 13, 2020, that the deficit from October through December totaled $356.6 billion. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
The U.S. budget deficit through the first three months of this budget year is up 11.8% from the same period a year ago, putting the country on track to record its first $1 trillion deficit in eight years.
In its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit from October through December totaled $356.6 billion, up from $318.9 billion for the same period last year.
Both government spending and revenues set records for the first three months of this budget year but spending rose at a faster clip than tax collections, pushing the deficit total up.
The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the deficit for the current 2020 budget year will hit $1 trillion and will remain over $1 trillion for the next decade. The country has not experienced $1 trillion annual deficits since the period from 2009 through 2012 following the 2008 financial crisis.
The actual deficit for the 2019 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $984.4 billion, up 26% from the 2018 imbalance, reflecting the impact of the $1.5 trillion tax cut President Donald Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 and increased spending for military and domestic programs that Trump accepted as part of a budget deal with Democrats.
The projections of trillion-dollar deficits are in contrast to Trumpās campaign promise in 2016 that even with his proposed tax cuts, he would be able to eliminate future deficits with cuts in spending and growth in revenues that would result from a stronger economy.
For the first three months of the 2020 budget year, revenues have totaled $806.5 billion, up 4.8% from the same three months a year ago, while government spending has totaled $948.9 billion, an increase of 6.3% from a year ago.
Both the spending amounts and revenue amounts are records for the first three months of a budget year. The deficit in December totaled $13.3 billion, slightly lower than the $13.5 billion deficit in December 2019.
Summers would go on toĀ suggestĀ that secular stagnation āmay be the defining macroeconomic challenge of our timesā. There followed aĀ major debateĀ between heavyweight economists about whether he was right, but for several years the global economy contradicted him by growingĀ steadily.
Now, however, this looks to be at an end. Look no further than theĀ OECD projectionsĀ from March 6, which foresee all advanced economies growing much more slowly than anticipated a few months ago. The left-hand chart below shows the OECD projections from last May, while the right-hand chart shows the latest outlook, complete with red arrows to indicate the sharpest downward revisions.
The overarchingĀ global themeĀ seems to be Donald Trumpās trade war and the fact that central banks have been tightening monetary policy: the US Federal ReserveĀ has hikedĀ interest rates four times in the past year, while the European Central Bank isĀ no longerĀ āprintingā money through its programme of quantitative easing. There are additional local reasons, such as UK fears about a hard Brexit, or excessive levels of private sector debt in China. Underlying all of this, however, is the growing feeling that secular stagnation is a major drag behind the scenes.
Back in fashion
The theory was originallyĀ put forwardĀ in 1938 by the Harvard economist Alvin Hansen in response to the Great Depression. HeĀ argued thatĀ Americaās economy was suffering from a lack of investment opportunities linked to waning technological innovation; and not enough new workers due to an ageing population, too little immigration, and the closing of the old economic frontier in the American West.
In Hansenās view, the weak growth in the economy was therefore here to stay ā āsecularā means ālong termā in this context. Yet he would soon be proved spectacularly wrong as World War II provided a big temporary boost to the economy in the form of military spending, followed by a post-war baby boom and rapid technological progress in the 1950s and 1960s. Little more was heard of secular stagnation until Larry Summersā intervention.
At the core of the theory today is real interest rates. This refers to the long-term interest rate, meaning the rate of return on ten-year government bonds, after inflation has been stripped out. For example, if a countryās long-term interest rate is 1% but the rate of inflation is 2.5%, the real interest rate is -1.5%.
When you take a global average of real interest rates from different countries, my own researchĀ shows thatĀ the global rate has declined from more than 5% in the early 1980s to below 0% after the financial crisis of 2007-09. Today, real interest ratesĀ remain negativeĀ in many advanced economies, including Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the entire eurozone.
Summers hasĀ pointed toĀ several structural factors behind this long-term decline. In an echo of what appeared true in 1938, rich countries are ageing as birth rates decline and people live longer. This hasĀ pushed downĀ real interest rates because investors think these trends will mean they will make lower returns from investing in future, making them more willing to accept a lower return on government debtĀ as a result.
Other factors that make investors similarly pessimistic includeĀ rising global inequalityĀ and the slowdown in productivity growth. It is a major paradox that labour productivity, the most important source of long-run economic growth, is actually rising much slower today than for decades, even though technological progress has seemingly accelerated.
This decline in real interest rates matters because economists believe that to overcome an economic downturn, a central bank must drive down the real interest rate to a certain level to encourage more spending and investment. This isĀ referredĀ to as the level required to reach full employment. Because real interest rates are so low, Summers and his supporters believe that the rate required to reach full employment is so far into negative territory that it is effectively impossible.
The remedy
Summers argues that this problem is why the massive cuts to headline interest rates after the financial crisis did not solve the problem. In other words, monetary policy was actually much less expansionary than many people believe (even though quantitative easing was actuallyĀ helpful here). Not only that, there is now substantialĀ evidence thatĀ austerity policies in places like southern Europe made things significantly worse.
The upshot is that in the eurozone and elsewhere, there is little or no room to cut interest rates when the next recession comes ā probably fairly soon given the current expansion is already a few years old. Central bankers will meanwhile be wary of using more quantitative easing, since it hasĀ generatedĀ a lot of political backlash.
So what to do instead? Interestingly, theĀ one countryĀ not to have had a recession in almost 30 years is Australia, which has enjoyed very high population growth and has never seen interest rates as low as many countries. This suggests that in the long run, more immigration might be a vital part of curing secular stagnation. Summers also heavily prescribes increased government spending,Ā arguingĀ that it might actually be more prudent than cutting back ā especially if the money is spent on infrastructure, education and research and development.
Of course, governments in Europe and the US are instead trying to shut their doors to migrants. And austerity policiesĀ have taken their tollĀ on infrastructure and public research. This looks set to ensure that the next recession will be particularly nasty when it comes. Alvin Hansen may have been wrong in the 1930s but his analysis is looking increasingly persuasive today. Unless governments change course radically, we could be in for a sobering period ahead.
Global debt has hit an all-time high ofĀ $188 trillion, which is more than double the output of the global economy, the IMF warned today.
The global debt load has surged to a new record of aroundĀ 230 per cent of world’s output, IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva said.
While private sector borrowing accounts for the vast majority of the total, the rise puts governments and individuals at risk if the economy slows, she said.
‘Global debt – both public and private – has reached an all-time high of $188 trillion.Ā This amounts to about 230 per cent of world output,’ Georgieva said in a speech to open a two-day conference on debt.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva speaks during a news conference last month. She warned debt burdens on governments around the world
That is up from the previous record of $164 trillion in 2016, according to IMF figures.
While interest rates remain low, borrowers can use debt to make investments in productive activities or weather a bout of low commodity prices.
But it can become ‘a drag on growth’, she said.
‘The bottom line is that high debt burdens have left many governments, companies, and households vulnerable to a sudden tightening of financial conditions,’ she cautioned.
Corporate debt accounts for about two thirds of the total but government borrowing has risen as well in the wake of the global financial crisis.
‘Public debt in advanced economies is at levels not seen since the Second World War,’ she warned.Ā And ’emerging market public debt is at levels last seen during the 1980s debt crisis.’
She called for steps to ensure ‘borrowing is more sustainable,’ including making lending practices more transparent and preparing for debt restructuring with ‘non-traditional lenders’ – an apparent reference to China, which has become a major creditor to developing nations including in Africa.
In economics,Ā secular stagnationĀ is a condition when there is negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy.[1]Ā In this context, the termĀ secularĀ means long-term (from Latin “saeculum“ācentury or lifetime), and is used in contrast toĀ cyclicalĀ orĀ short-term. It suggests a change of fundamental dynamics which would play out only in its own time. The concept was originally put forth byĀ Alvin HansenĀ in 1938. According toĀ The Economist, it was used to “describe what he feared was the fate of the American economy following the Great Depression of the early 1930s: a check to economic progress as investment opportunities were stunted by the closing of the frontier and the collapse of immigration”.[2][3]Ā Warnings of impending secular stagnation have been issued after all deep recessions since theĀ Great Depression, but the hypothesis has remained controversial.[4][5]
Sectoral balancesĀ in U.S. economy 1990-2017. By definition, the three balances must net to zero. The green line indicates a private sector surplus, where savings exceeds investment. Since 2008, the foreign sector surplus and private sector surplus have been offset by a government budget deficit.[6]
The term secular stagnation refers to a market economy with a chronic (secular or long-term) lack of demand. Historically, a booming economy with low unemployment and high GDP growth (i.e., an economy at or above capacity) would generate inflation in wages and products. However, an economy facing secular stagnation behaves as if it is operating below capacity, even when the economy appears to be booming; inflation does not appear. Savings by households exceeds investment by businesses, which in a healthy economy would cause interest rates to fall, stimulating spending and investment thereby bringing the two into balance. However, an economy facing secular stagnation may require an interest rate below zero to bring savings and investment into balance. The surplus of savings over investment may be generating price appreciation in financial assets or real estate. For example, the U.S. had low unemployment but low inflation in the years leading up to theĀ Great Recession, although a massive housing bubble developed.[7]
The idea of secular stagnation dates back to theĀ Great Depression, when some economists feared that the United States had permanently entered a period of low growth.[8]Ā The EconomistĀ explained in 2018 that many factors may contribute to secular stagnation, by either driving up savings or reducing investment. Households paying down debt (i.e., deleveraging) increase savings and are spending less; businesses react to the lack of demand by investing less. This was a major factor in the slow U.S. GDP growth during 2009-2012 following the Great Recession. Another possible cause is income inequality, which shifts more money to the wealthy, who tend to save it rather than spend it, thus increasing savings and perhaps driving up financial asset prices. Aging populations (which spend less per capita) and a slowdown in productivity may also reduce investment. Governments facing secular stagnation may choose to: a) accept slower growth; b) accept an asset bubble to temporarily stimulate the economy; or c) absorb the savings surplus through higher budget deficits, which reduces national savings but increases the risk of financial crises. Central banks face a difficult dilemma; do they raise interest rates to ward off inflation (e.g., implement monetary policy austerity) assuming the economy is in a cyclical boom, or assume the economy (even if temporarily booming) is in secular stagnation and therefore take a more stimulative approach?[7]
An analysis of stagnation and what is now calledĀ financializationĀ was provided in the 1980s byĀ Harry MagdoffĀ andĀ Paul Sweezy, coeditors of the independent socialist journalĀ Monthly Review. Magdoff was a former economic advisor to Vice PresidentĀ Henry A. WallaceĀ in RooseveltāsĀ New DealĀ administration, while Sweezy was a former Harvard economics professor. In their 1987 book,Ā Stagnation and the Financial Explosion, they argued, based on Keynes, Hansen,Ā MichaÅ Kalecki, and Marx, and marshaling extensive empirical data,[citation needed]Ā that, contrary to the usual way of thinking, stagnation or slow growth was the norm for mature, monopolistic (or oligopolistic) economies, while rapid growth was the exception.[9]
Private accumulation had a strong tendency to weak growth and high levels of excess capacity and unemployment/underemployment, which could, however, be countered in part by such exogenous factors as state spending (military and civilian), epoch-making technological innovations (for example, the automobile in its expansionary period), and the growth of finance.[10]Ā In the 1980s and 1990s Magdoff and Sweezy argued that a financial explosion of long duration was lifting the economy, but this would eventually compound the contradictions of the system, producing ever bigger speculative bubbles, and leading eventually to a resumption of overt stagnation.
2008ā2009
Economists have asked whether the low economic growth rate in the developed world leading up to and following theĀ subprime mortgage crisisĀ of 2007-2008 was due to secular stagnation.Ā Paul KrugmanĀ wrote in September 2013: “[T]here is a case for believing that the problem of maintaining adequate aggregate demand is going to be very persistent ā that we may face something like the ‘secular stagnation’ many economists feared after World War II.” Krugman wrote that fiscal policy stimulus and higher inflation (to achieve a negative real rate of interest necessary to achieve full employment) may be potential solutions.[11]
Larry SummersĀ presented his view during November 2013 that secular (long-term) stagnation may be a reason that U.S. growth is insufficient to reach full employment: “Suppose then that the short term real interest rate that was consistent with full employment [i.e., the “natural rate”] had fallen to negative two or negative three percent. Even with artificial stimulus to demand you wouldn’t see any excess demand. Even with a resumption in normal credit conditions you would have a lot of difficulty getting back to full employment.”[12][13]
Robert J. GordonĀ wrote in August 2012: “Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative ‘exercise in subtraction’ suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades”.[14]
Post-2009
This chart compares U.S. potential GDP under two CBO forecasts (one from 2007 and one from 2016) versus the actual real GDP. It is based on a similar diagram from economist Larry Summers from 2014.[15]
Secular stagnation was dusted off byĀ Hans-Werner SinnĀ in a 2009 articleĀ [16]Ā dismissing the threat of inflation, and became popular again whenĀ Larry SummersĀ invoked the term and concept during a 2013 speech at the IMF.[17]
However,Ā The EconomistĀ criticizes secular stagnation as “a baggy concept, arguably too capacious for its own good”.[2]Ā Warnings of impending secular stagnation have been issued after all deep recessions, but turned out to be wrong because they underestimated the potential of existing technologies.[4]
Paul Krugman, writing in 2014, clarified that it refers to “the claim that underlying changes in the economy, such as slowing growth in the working-age population, have made episodes like the past five years in Europe and the United States, and the last 20 years in Japan, likely to happen often. That is, we will often find ourselves facing persistent shortfalls of demand, which canāt be overcome even with near-zero interest rates.”[18]Ā At its root is “the problem of building consumer demand at a time when people are less motivated to spend”.[19]
One theory is that the boost in growth by the internet and technological advancement in computers of theĀ new economyĀ does not measure up to the boost caused by the greatĀ inventionsĀ of the past. An example of such a great invention is theĀ assembly lineĀ production method ofĀ Fordism. The general form of the argument has been the subject of papers by Robert J. Gordon.[20]Ā It has also been written about by Owen. C. Paepke andĀ Tyler Cowen.[21]
Secular stagnation has also been linked to the rise of the digital economy.Ā Carl Benedikt Frey, for example, has suggested that digital technologies are much less capital-absorbing, creating only little new investment demand relative to other revolutionary technologies.[22]
A third is that there is a “persistent and disturbing reluctance of businesses to invest and consumers to spend”, perhaps in part because so much of the recent gains have gone to the people at the top, and they tend to save more of their money than peopleāordinary working people who can’t afford to do that.[19]
A fourth is that advanced economies are just simply paying the price for years of inadequate investment in infrastructure and education, the basic ingredients of growth.
A fifth is related to decreased mortality and increased longevity, thus changes in the demographic structure in advanced economies, affecting both demand, through increased savings, and supply, through reduced innovation activities.[23]
And a sixth is that economic growth is largely related to the concept ofĀ energy returned on energy investedĀ (EROEI), or energy surplus, which with the discovery ofĀ fossil fuelsĀ shot up to very high and historically unprecedented levels. This allowed, and in effect fueled, dramatic increases in human consumption since theĀ Industrial RevolutionĀ and many related technological advances. Under this argument, diminishing and increasingly difficult to access fossil fuel reserves directly lead to significantly reduced EROEI, and therefore put a brake on, and potentially reverse, long-term economic growth, leading to secular stagnation.[24]Ā Linked to the EROEI argument are those stemming from theĀ Limits to GrowthĀ school of thinking, whereby environmental and resource constraints in general are likely to impose an eventual limit on the continued expansion of human consumption and incomes. While ‘limits to growth’ thinking went out of fashion in the decades following the initial publication in 1972, a recent study[25]Ā shows human development continues to align well with the ‘overshoot and collapse’ projection outlined in the standard run of the original analysis, and this is before factoring in the potential effects ofĀ climate change.
A 2018 CUSP working paper byĀ Tim Jackson, TheĀ Post-GrowthĀ Challenge,[26]Ā argues that low growth rates might in fact be āthe new normalā.[27]
Story 3: The Peace and Prosperity President Trump With A Non-interventionist Foreign and Domestic Policies — Back To Realpolitik with Offshore Balancing? — Videos
Trump reveals new details on imminent threat from Soleimani
Iran’s Power Over Iraq | VICE on HBO
Anti-government protests in Iran over downing of Ukrainian passenger plane
Gutfeld on the Iran protests over the jetliner
Iran Shot Down a Ukrainian Passenger Plane. Here’s How it Happened. | Visual Investigations
What is OFFSHORE BALANCING? What does OFFSHORE BALANCING mean? OFFSHORE BALANCING meaning
Foreign Policy: Crash Course Government and Politics #50
Trump’s 2018 Foreign Policy: Year in Review | NowThis World
US Foreign Policy in Donald Trump’s Era
President-elect Trump’s Emerging Foreign Policy
Is Trump’s Foreign Policy Non-Interventionist? Not So Fast
Stephen Walt: Can the U.S. Still Have a Successful Foreign Policy?
Welcome To “THE HELL OF GOOD INTENTIONS”
Realism and Restraint: America’s New Foreign Policy
Stephen Walt: The Repeated Failures of the US Foreign Policy Elite
Stephen Walt ā What Grand Strategy for America?: Why Offshore Balancing is Best
A New Vision for American Foreign Policy
Oct 21, 2019
Stephen M. Walt: What Went Wrong with Liberalism?
Stephen Walt: From Israel to Iran to Mexico, Trump Has Already Blown It on Foreign Policy
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
The Great Delusion with Professor John Mearsheimer
“Iran must come after Iraq” Israel Lobby Steers U.S. Foreign Policy – John Mearsheimer
Theory & Practice of Security Conference | Keynote: Dr. John Mearsheimer
The rise and fall of the liberal international order
John Mearsheimer – The Future of NATO in the Age of Trump | ROEC
Nov 4, 2018
John Mearsheimer: We are Moving to a Multipolar World with Three Great Powers
John J. Mearsheimer, āThe False Promise of Liberal Hegemonyā
John J. Mearsheimer, āThe Roots of Liberal Hegemonyā
Why are Iran and Saudi Arabia enemies?
Trumpās Iran Policy Is Brain-Dead
Lacking coherent objectives and a strategy for achieving them, moves like the assassination of Qassem Suleimani are foreign policy as theaterāand could leave the United States worse off.
Well, that didnāt take long. 2020 is less than a week old, and U.S. President Donald Trump has managed to stumble into another pointless and dangerous crisis with Iran. It is the near-inevitable result of his myopic approach to the entire Middle East (and especially Iran) and another demonstration of Washingtonās inability to formulate a coherent and effective policy toward any important global issue.
When did this country get so bad at strategy?
Trending Articles
āWe Will Have to Wait and See if Iran Is Doneā
Former Centcom commander says the United States would be mistaken to take Iranās word that it does not seek escalation.
In fairness, the problem predates Trump, although his own incompetence, impulsiveness, indifference to advice, and uncanny ability to pick third-rate advisors has made the problem worse. The end result may be moreĀ innocent lives lostāsome of them Americanāand a further erosion in the United Statesā global position. And thatās assuming that Trumpās ordering of the killing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Suleimani doesnāt lead to all-out war.
With respect to Iran, the assassination is a strategic error entirely of Trumpās own making. Egged on by Saudi Arabia, Israel, hawkish institutes like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, andĀ some of his wealthy backers, the president abandoned the multilateral agreement that had successfully capped Iranās nuclear program and also created a diplomatic opening that a savvier administration could have used to address Iranās regional activities. He then began his campaign of so-called maximum pressureāaĀ comprehensive program of economic warfare against IranĀ that sought to eliminate the countryās enrichment capacity, force Iran to change its foreign policy to suit the United States, and maybe topple the regime itself. Ordinary Iranians are suffering mightily as a result of U.S. sanctions, but the regime has neither caved to Trumpās demands nor collapsed. Instead, it has moved gradually to restart its nuclear program,Ā cultivatedĀ closer ties with Russia and China, andĀ retaliatedĀ against U.S. allies in the region. The logic of Tehranās response is straightforward and utterly predictable: If the United States wants to make life difficult for Iran, its leaders will demonstrate that they can make life difficult for the United States too. It wouldnāt take more than a shred of strategic thinking to anticipate Iranās response and recognize that unilateral pressure was not going to work.
By eschewing diplomacy and relying solely on threats and coercion, Trump gave himself no choice but to back down or escalate once it became clear that maximum pressure had backfired. When an Iraqi militia with ties to Iran staged a rocket attack in early December 2019 that killed a U.S. contractor, Trump responded with airstrikes against the militia camps that killed some two dozen Iraqis. Pro-Iranian Iraqi demonstrators proceeded to besiege the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, although with no loss of life. The demonstrators eventually dispersed, and the situation seemed to be deescalating. But then Trump approved the assassination of Suleimani, a very senior and highly respected Iranian official, in Baghdad early Friday morning.
To understand how this chain of events might look from Iranās perspective, consider how the United States might respond if a foreign adversary killed a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the head of the CIA, or maybe even the vice president. Washington would not just shrug it off. To say this is not to defend Suleimani, who was by all accounts an ardent foe of the United States. It is rather to ask the proper strategic question: Did assassinating a prominent official of a foreign government advance the countryās national interest? Will this act make Americans safer and richer, or increase their influence around the world? The answer is: no and no.
For starters, Iran will almost inevitablyĀ respond, just as the United States would were the situation reversed. The regime will do so at a time and with means of its own choosing, and in ways designed to maximize the pain and political impact. Second, the assassination is going to inflame Iranian nationalism and strengthen hard-line forces in Iran, further reducing any possibility of regime change there. Third, killing Suleimani on Iraqi soil is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty that put its fragile government on even shakier ground, and it is worth noting that caretaker Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi has alreadyĀ condemnedĀ the U.S. action. Fourth, Trump has now given Iran even more incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, a step that would force Washington to go to all-out war or back down and accept an Iranian bomb. All this over a country that has serious disputes with some of the United Statesā regional partners butĀ does not threaten the security or prosperity of the United States itselfĀ in any meaningful way.
And finally, thereās the precedent the United States is setting. As the political scientist Ward Thomas explained in aĀ seminal articleĀ in 2000, there has long been a powerful international norm against assassinations by governments, largely because the leaders of powerful states understand that it is in their mutual self-interest not to try to kill each other. The taboo didnāt completely eliminate the use of this tactic, of course, and Thomas argues that the norm has begun to break down in recent decades. But do we really want to live in a world where assassination is regarded as a perfectly normal way of doing business and becomes more and more commonplace? Surely hawkish American politicians who think killing Suleimani was acceptable donāt really want to run the risk of ending up on somebody elseās target list. And to be sure, if Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the killing of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, or if North Korean leader Kim Jong Un decided to redouble his grandfatherās efforts to murder politicians in South Korea, it would be far harder for the United States to object.
Moreover, although taking out bad guys may appeal to a crude desire for vengeance, it rarely solves the underlying political problem. A lot of bad leaders have departed this mortal coil in recent decades, yet the political challenges they embodied continue to bedevil us. Al Qaedaās Osama bin Laden, Libyaās Muammar al-Qaddafi, North Koreaās Kim Jong Il, Iraqās Saddam Hussein, the Talibanās Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Islamic Stateās Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many other U.S. foes are gone, but their deaths didnāt magically solve the foreign-policy problems with which they were associated. Indeed,Ā there is some evidenceĀ that ādecapitationā (that is, killing top leaders) tends to empower extremists and incline them toward even greater violence.
In short, the Trump administrationās approach to Iranāincluding this most recent incidentāappears devoid of strategic logic or purpose. Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and the rest of the administrationās foreign-policy team are like chess players who have failed to consider more than one move at a time and thus miss what should be an obvious fact of life in international politics: The other player gets to move their pieces too. Their denunciations, reinforcements, sanctions, and drone strikes are foreign policy as performance art, instead of the tough-minded and careful realpolitik that should inform a great nationās approach to the world.iran
Now for the really bad news: The lack of strategic thinkingāformulating a clear objective and developing a coherent plan to achieve it that anticipates how others are likely to respondāisnāt limited to the United Statesā dealings with Iran. And it goes well beyond the Trump administration, besides. Indeed, Iād argue that the countryās ability to formulate clear and effective strategies has been steadily eroding for some time. In my next column, Iāll offer some additional illustrations of the problem and explain why genuine strategic thinking is now an endangered species in the Land of the Free.
Thereās reason to think Donald Trump is becoming a closet realist or even ā dare I say it? ā an offshore balancer.
Admittedly, itās hard to credit him with having a coherent strategy of any kind, given the recurring contradictions in what he says and his penchant for reversing course without warning or explanation. But in the Middle East, at least, one could argue that Trump is trying ā in his own ill-informed, impulsive, and erratic way ā to return to the strategy of offshore balancing that the United States pursued more or less successfully in this region from 1945 to 1992.
To review: After World War II, U.S. leaders recognized that the Middle East was of increasing strategic importance. Oil and natural gas were fueling the world economy, and the Middle East contained enormous and readily accessible reserves. Accordingly, preventing any single power from dominating the region and gaining effective control of these critical resources became a central U.S. objective. But the United States didnāt try to protect Middle East oil by colonizing the region or garrisoning it with its own troops. Instead, it relied on Great Britain (until the late 1960s) and a variety of local clients to maintain a regional balance of power and prevent the Soviet Union from acquiring excessive influence.
When the United States did intervene with military force ā as it did in Lebanon in 1958 ā it kept its presence small and didnāt stay long. Concerns about a potential Soviet grab for the Gulf led the United States to create a new Rapid Deployment Force after the 1979 Iranian revolution, but Washington kept it offshore and over the horizon and didnāt bring it into the region until Iraq seized Kuwait in 1990. Because that invasion posed a serious threat to the regional balance of power, it made good sense for the United States (and many others) to intervene to expel Iraq and demolish much of its military machine.
The United States abandoned this sensible strategy after the first Gulf War, however, opting first for dual containment and then regional transformation. The first approach helped produce 9/11; the second brought us the debacle in Iraq and played no small role in the emergence of the Islamic State and the wider chaos we see there today. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Trump was critical of past U.S. involvement and promised to act differently as president.
In that light, consider what Trump has done since he took office.
First, as his recent actions in Syria remind us, he has shown no enthusiasm whatsoever for an expanded U.S. role in that conflict and especially not if it might involve a major U.S. ground force presence. Remember that a couple of weeks ago he was talking about getting out entirely, to the horror of nearly everyone in the foreign-policy mainstream. Like his predecessors, heās willing to order missile strikes on thugs such as Bashar al-Assad ā earning the usual cheers fromĀ liberal interventionistsĀ who never saw a military action they couldnāt find some rationale for supporting ā but heās not going to do more than that, and thereās no sign of a U.S.-led diplomatic initiative (such as the oneĀ Aaron SteinĀ has proposed) that might actually move that brutal conflict closer to a solution. Blowing things up from a safe distance is all Trump seems willing to contemplate, even when it wonāt affect the situation in Syria in the slightest.
The rest of Trumpās approach to the Middle East has been to let Americaās local clients ā Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Syrian Kurdish militias, etc. ā do more to counter various regional opponents (Iran, Syria, and increasingly Russia), as well as nonstate troublemakers, including al Qaeda and offshoots such as the Islamic State. Hezbollah and Hamas fall under that bad guy umbrella, too. To aid these efforts, the United States will sell or give its allies lots of sophisticated weapons (which helps reduce the trade deficit) and provide them with diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Washington will also turn a blind eye to whateverĀ foolish crueltiesĀ its regional partners decide to inflict onĀ mostly helpless victimsĀ and forget about trying to promote democracy, human rights, regional transformation, or any of that idealistic sob stuff.
Isnāt this more restrained approach what I (and other realists) have beenĀ recommending for years, to little avail? The United States stays out of the region and lets the locals duke it out so long as none of them comes close to winning it all. Over time, it can worry less and less about the entire Middle East as the world weans itself off fossil fuels (and the countryās own shale gas production provides whatever residual it needs). In the meantime, the United States can focus its attention on regions that matter more, such as East and Southeast Asia. Shouldnāt I be cheering (and claiming credit) for Trumpās handling of these issues?
Not quite.
Thereās no question that Trump is appropriately wary of what he sees as open-ended military quagmires, and thatās a step in the right direction after the follies of the past 25 years. But that wariness hardly makes him unique at this point. No sensible leader starts a war if he or she knows in advance that it will be an open-ended and costly affair, and for the United States, the more demanding challenge is gettingĀ outĀ of the endless wars of choice it has stumbled into by mistake.And here Trump has visibly failed.
Tweeted misgivings and sometimes sensible rhetoric aside, the cold, hard truth is that Trump has done next to nothing to reduce the U.S. footprint in the greater Middle East. In addition to sending more troops to the unwinnable Afghan war, he has authorized the Defense Department to ramp up U.S. counterterrorism activities in several places and sent more troops to do the job. By oneĀ estimate, the U.S. military presence in the region has increased by about 33 percent on Trumpās watch, to a total of roughly 54,000 troops and civilian support personnel.
To be clear, thatās not exactly what people like me mean by āoffshore.ā
Second, the central goal of offshore balancing is to prevent any hostile power from dominating a critical strategic region and, if possible, to get others to bear most of the burden of that effort. Well, as Trump (or George W. Bush) might say: āMission accomplished.ā Preserving a balance of power in the region is easier today than it has ever been because the Middle East is already as divided as it has ever been and thereās no outside power (like the old Soviet Union) that might aspire to such a goal. (Russiaās role in Syria is limited to keeping Assad in power ā full stop ā and thatās a very modest objective.) The idea thatĀ anyĀ single power is going to dominate or control the entire region is presently remote and likely to remain so for decades. The United States couldnāt do it when it was the uncontested unipolar power, and China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or Iran wouldnāt be able to do it if they tried.
Yet Trumpās headlong support for Americaās present clients rests on the assumption that the regional balance of power is actually quite delicate. Poorly informed and easily bamboozled, he has swallowed the Saudi/Israeli/Emirati view that Iran is a rapacious potential hegemon that is on the brink of establishing a new Persian Empire. In Trumpās mind, therefore, the United States has little choice but to give its local allies uncritical and unconditional support. (One suspects the equally gullible Jared Kushner had a role in this feverish vision, too.) At the same time, Trump inexplicably thinks walking away from the nuclear deal with Iran will make containing the country easier because he fails to grasp that sabotaging the deal will make it more likely that Iran ends up a nuclear weapons state like North Korea. The United States could launch a preventive war, but that possibility has quagmire written all over it and is hardly what offshore balancers would recommend. Americaās local clients may be delighted if it took this fateful step (and if it worked, of course), but that would only prove that Washingtonās allies were better at passing the buck to it than it was at passing the buck back to them.
Needless to say, Trumpās uncritical embrace of U.S. alliesā self-interested worldview is at odds with the sober realism that offshore balancers recommend. And as Iāve already explained in anĀ earlier column, paranoia about Iran is badly at odds with reality and just gets in the way of a more sensible Middle East strategy.
Furthermore, giving present allies unconditional support while ostracizing Iran reduces Americaās leverage over everyoneās behavior and thus limits its ability to shape events in positive ways. It encourages allies to take U.S. support for granted ā and why shouldnāt they, given the fawning adoration on display for leaders such as Israeli Prime MinisterĀ Benjamin NetanyahuĀ and Saudi Crown PrinceĀ Mohammed bin SalmanĀ ā and gives them little incentive to do what they can to stay in Americaās good graces.
Even worse, such an uncritical stance encourages what Barry Posen, a security studies expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calls āreckless driving,ā meaning the tendency for allies to take unnecessary risks and pursue foolhardy policies because they believe their powerful patron will bail them out if they get into difficulties. That overconfidence explains why the Israeli government thinks building settlements poses no risks and helps us understand why Mohammed bin Salman is waging a costly and inhumane war in Yemen, trying (and failing) to ostracize Qatar, and interfering in Lebanon and Syria to no good purpose. It is partly because he is headstrong and impulsive but also because heās confident that America has his back now no matter how badly his initiatives fare.
If the United States were truly acting like an offshore balancer (i.e., the way Great Britain did in its great-power heyday), it would have diplomatic relations and businesslike dealings with all countries in the Middle East, not just the ones that have successfully convinced it to back their agendas and ignore its own interests. Offshore balancers want U.S. diplomats talking to everyone pretty much all of the time and to drive a hard bargain with friends and foes alike. Thatās the luxury Americaās providential position in the Western Hemisphere affords it, and youād think a selfish guy like Trump would understand it easily. The United States should have regular dealings with its adversaries not because it likes them or agrees with them but because that is the best way to advance U.S. interests. Frequent interactions with both friends and (current) foes give Washington the opportunity to explain how it sees things, make it easier for it to understand what others are thinking, and facilitate devising strategies that will get them to give the United States most of what it wants.
Lastly, talking to everyone reminds enemies that they might become friends if they play their cards right and reminds current friends that they arenāt the only game in town and that they shouldnāt take American support for granted. When U.S. officials meet with their counterparts in in Riyadh or Tel Aviv or Cairo, I want everyone in the room to know that some other U.S. officials are busy discussing regional affairs in Tehran and Moscow, too. And vice versa, of course. Thatās how other great powers do it: Why shouldnāt the United States?
To sum up: Trump has a ways to go before he can be considered a true offshore balancer. He seems to grasp part of the logic ā itās better to let others contend than to do the heavy lifting yourself ā but he lacks the knowledge, skill, and subtlety to make a sophisticated strategy like this work. Iām not expecting him to improve either, because he may not haveĀ that much time left. AndĀ even if he does, learning on the job just doesnāt seem to be in his skill set.
Non-interventionismĀ is the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history among government and popular opinion in theĀ United States. At times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known asĀ isolationism, such as theĀ period between the world wars.
Background
Robert Walpole, Britain’s firstĀ WhigĀ Prime Minister, proclaimed in 1723: “My politics are to keep free from all engagements as long as we possibly can.” He emphasized economic advantage and rejected the idea of intervening in European affairs to maintain aĀ balance of power.[1]Ā Walpole’s position was known to Americans. However, during theĀ American Revolution, theĀ Second Continental CongressĀ debated about forming an alliance with France. It rejected non-interventionism when it was apparent that theĀ American Revolutionary WarĀ could be won in no other manner thanĀ a military alliance with France, which Benjamin Franklin successfully negotiated in 1778.[2]
After Britain and France went to war in 1792,Ā George WashingtonĀ declared neutrality, with unanimous support of his cabinet, after deciding that the treaty with France of 1778 did not apply.[3]Ā Washington’s Farewell AddressĀ of 1796 explicitly announced the policy of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.[4]
PresidentĀ Thomas JeffersonĀ extended Washington’s ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801Ā inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the “essential principles of our government” is that of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”[5]Ā He also stated that “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be” the motto of the United States.[6]
In 1823, PresidentĀ James MonroeĀ articulated what would come to be known as theĀ Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.” It was applied to Hawaii in 1842 in support of eventual annexation there, and to supportĀ U.S. expansion on the North American continent.
AfterĀ Tsar Alexander IIĀ put down the 1863Ā January UprisingĀ inĀ Poland, French EmperorĀ Napoleon IIIĀ asked the United States to “join in a protest to the Tsar.”[7]Ā Secretary of StateĀ William H. SewardĀ declined, “defending ‘our policy of non-interventionāstraight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'” and insisted that “[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”[7]
Theodore Roosevelt‘s administration is credited with inciting theĀ Panamanian RevoltĀ against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).
The President of the United StatesĀ Woodrow Wilson, afterĀ winning reelectionĀ with the slogan “He kept us out of war,” was able to navigate neutrality inĀ World War IĀ for about three years. Early on, their historic shunning of foreign entanglements, and the presence in the US of immigrants with divided loyalties in the conflict helped maintain neutrality. Various causes compelledĀ American entry into World War I, and Congress would vote to declare war on Germany;[9]Ā this would involve the nation on the side of theĀ Triple Entente, but only as an “associated power” fighting the same enemy, not one officially allied with them.[10]Ā A few months after the declaration of War, Wilson gave a speech to congress outlining his aims to end the conflict, labeled theĀ Fourteen Points. While this American proclamation was less triumphalist than the aims of some of its allies, it did propose in the final point, that aĀ general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.Ā After the war, Wilson traveled to Europe and stayed for months to labor on the post-war treaty; no president had previously enjoined such sojourn outside of the country. In thatĀ Treaty of Versailles, Wilson’sĀ associationĀ was formulated as theĀ League of Nations.
Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before theĀ attack on Pearl Harbor.
In theĀ wakeĀ of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies gained ascendancy. TheĀ Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United States’ participation in theĀ League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Senate in the final months of Wilson’s presidency. Republican Senate leaderĀ Henry Cabot LodgeĀ supported the Treaty with reservations to be sure Congress had final authority on sending the U.S. into war. Wilson and his Democratic supporters rejected theĀ Lodge Reservations,
The strongest opposition to American entry into the League of Nations came from the Senate where a tight-knit faction known as theĀ Irreconcilables, led byĀ William BorahĀ andĀ George Norris, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. SenatorĀ William Borah, of Idaho, declared that it would “purchase peace at the cost of any part of our [American] independence.”[11]Ā SenatorĀ Hiram Johnson, of California, denounced the League of Nations as a “gigantic war trust.”[12]Ā While some of the sentiment was grounded in adherence to Constitutional principles, most of the sentiment bore a reassertion ofĀ nativistĀ and inward-looking policy.[13]
The United States acted independently to become a major player in the 1920s in international negotiations and treaties. The Harding Administration achieved naval disarmament among the major powers through theĀ Washington Naval ConferenceĀ in 1921-22. TheĀ Dawes PlanĀ refinanced war debts and helped restore prosperity to Germany, In August 1928, fifteen nations signed theĀ KelloggāBriand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of StateĀ Frank KelloggĀ and French Foreign MinisterĀ Aristide Briand.[14]Ā This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.[15]Ā For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.[16]Ā The KelloggāBriand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.
The economic depression that ensued after theĀ Crash of 1929, also continued to abet non-intervention. The attention of the country focused mostly on addressing the problems of the national economy. The rise of aggressive expansionism policies byĀ Fascist ItalyĀ and theĀ Empire of JapanĀ led to conflicts such as theĀ Italian conquest of EthiopiaĀ and theĀ Japanese invasion of Manchuria. These events led to ineffectual condemnations by the League of Nations. Official American response was muted. America also did not take sides in the brutalĀ Spanish Civil War.
Non-interventionism before entering World War II
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, theĀ United States CongressĀ continued to demand American neutrality. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress passed theĀ Neutrality Acts. For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations. Such activities had played a role in American entrance into World War I.
On September 1, 1939,Ā Germany invaded Poland;Ā BritainĀ andĀ FranceĀ subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American People two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war.[17]Ā However, his words showed his true goals. “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” Roosevelt said.[17]Ā Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.[17]
The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America’s involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunningĀ defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany.[18][19]Ā In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we ā¦ can safely permit the United States to become a lone island ā¦ in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”[20]Ā A national survey found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported “arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble”, and that 71% favored “the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men”.[21]
Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. WriterĀ Archibald MacLeishĀ asked, “How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?”[22]Ā In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, “the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government.”[23]
However, there were still many who held on to non-interventionism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress.[24]Ā Pro-German or anti-British opinion contributed to non-interventionism. Roosevelt’s national share of theĀ 1940 presidential voteĀ declined by seven percentage points from 1936. Of the 20 counties in which his share declined by 35 points or more, 19 were largely German-speaking. Of the 35 counties in which his share declined by 25 to 34 points, German was the largest or second-largest original nationality in 31.[25]Ā Non-interventionists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington’s farewell address and the failure of World War I.[26]Ā “If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world,”Ā Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay.[27]Ā Isolationists believed that the safety of the nation was more important than any foreign war.[28]
As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash.[24]Ā This policy was quickly dubbed, ‘Cash and Carry.’[29]Ā The second phase was theĀ Lend-LeaseĀ Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President “to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any ‘defense article’ or any ‘defense information’ to ‘the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.'”[30]Ā American public opinion supported Roosevelt’s actions. As United States involvement in theĀ Battle of the AtlanticĀ grew with incidents such as the sinking of theĀ USSĀ Reuben James(DD-245), by late 1941 72% of Americans agreed that “the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government”, and 70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.[31]
Ohio SenatorĀ Robert A TaftĀ was a leading opponent of interventionism after 1945, although it always played a secondary role to his deep interest in domestic affairs. Historian George Fujii, citing the Taft papers, argues:
Taft fought a mostly losing battle to reduce government expenditures and to curtail or prevent foreign aid measures such as the British loan of 1945 and the Marshall Plan. He feared that these measures would “destroy the freedom of the individual, freedom of States and local communities, freedom of the farmer to run his own farm and the workman to do his own job” (p. 375), thereby threatening the foundations of American prosperity and leading to a “totalitarian state” (p. 377).[33]
In 1951, in the midst of bitter partisan debate over the Korean War, Taft increasingly spoke out on foreign policy issues. According to his biographer James T. Patterson:
Two basic beliefs continued to form a fairly consistent core of Taft’s thinking on foreign policy. First, he insisted on limiting America’s overseas commitments. [Taft said] “Nobody today can be an isolationist…. The only question is the degree to which we shall take action throughout the entire world.” America had obligations that it had to honor ā such as NATO ā and it could not turn a blind eye to such countries as Formosa or Israel. But the United States had limited funds and problems at home and must therefore curb its commitments….This fear of overcommitment was rooted in Taft’s even deeper faith in liberty, which made him shrink from a foreign policy that would cost large sums of money, increase the power of the military, and transform American society into what he called a garrison state.[34]
Norman A. Graebner argues:
Differences over collective security in the G.O.P. were real in 1952, but Taft tried during his pre-convention campaign to moderate his image as a “go-it-aloner” in foreign policy. His whole effort proved unsuccessful, largely because by spring the internationalist camp had a formidable candidate of its own inĀ Dwight D. Eisenhower. As the personification of post-1945 American commitment to collective security, particularly in Europe, General Eisenhower had decided to run because he feared, apparently, that Taft’s election would lead to repudiation of the whole collective security effort, including NATO.[35]
Eisenhower won the nomination and secured Taft’s support by promising Taft a dominant voice in domestic policies, while Eisenhower’s internationalism would set the foreign-policy agenda.[36]Ā Graebner argues that Eisenhower succeeded in moving the conservative Republicans away from their traditional attacks on foreign aid and reciprocal trade policies, and collective security arrangements, to support for those policies.[37]Ā By 1964 the Republican conservatives rallied behindĀ Barry GoldwaterĀ who was an aggressive advocate of an anti-communist internationalist foreign policy. Goldwater wanted toĀ roll backĀ Communism and win the Cold War, asking “Why Not Victory?”[38]
Non-interventionism in the 21st century
During theĀ presidency of Barack Obama, some members of the United States federal government, including President Obama and Secretary of StateĀ John Kerry, considered intervening militarily in theĀ Syrian Civil War.[39][40]Ā A poll from late April 2013 found that 62% of Americans thought that the “United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups,” with only twenty-five percent disagreeing with that statement.[41]Ā A writer forĀ The New York TimesĀ referred to this as “an isolationist streak,” a characterization international relations scholarĀ Stephen WaltĀ strongly objected to, calling the description “sloppy journalism.”[41][42]Ā According to Walt, “the overwhelming majority of people who have doubts about the wisdom of deeper involvement inĀ Syriaāincluding yours trulyāare not ‘isolationist.’ They are merely sensible people who recognize that we may not have vital interests there, that deeper involvement may not lead to a better outcome and could make things worse, and who believe that the last thing the United States needs to do is to get dragged into yet another nasty sectarian fight in the Arab/Islamic world.”[42]
In December 2013, theĀ Pew Research CenterĀ reported that their newest poll, “American’s Place in the World 2013,” had revealed that 52 percent of respondents in the national poll said that the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”[43]Ā This was the most people to answer that question this way in the history of the question, one which pollsters began asking in 1964.[44]Ā Only about a third of respondents felt this way a decade ago.[44]
A July 2014 poll of “battleground voters” across the United States found “77 percent in favor of full withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2016; only 15 percent and 17 percent interested in more involvement in Syria and Ukraine, respectively; and 67 percent agreeing with the statement that, ‘U.S. military actions should be limited to direct threats to our national security.'”[45]
Conservative policies
Rathbun (2008) compares three separate themes in conservative policies since the 1980s:Ā conservatism,Ā neoconservatism, andĀ isolationism. These approaches are similar in that they all invoked the mantle of “realism” and pursued foreign policy goals designed to promote national interests. Conservatives, however, were the only group that was “realist” in the academic sense in that they defined the national interest narrowly, strove forĀ balances of powerĀ internationally, viewed international relations as amoral, and especially valuedĀ sovereignty. By contrast, neoconservatives based their foreign policy onĀ nationalism, and isolationists sought to minimize any involvement in foreign affairs and raise new barriers toĀ immigration.[46]Ā Former Republican CongressmanĀ Ron PaulĀ favored a return to the non-interventionist policies ofĀ Thomas JeffersonĀ and frequently opposed military intervention in countries likeĀ IranĀ andĀ Iraq.
Offshore balancingĀ is a strategic concept used inĀ realistĀ analysis inĀ international relations. It describes a strategy in which aĀ great powerĀ uses favored regional powers to check the rise of potentially-hostile powers. This strategy stands in contrast to the dominant grand strategy in the United States,Ā liberal hegemony. Offshore balancing calls for a great power to withdraw from onshore positions and focus its offshore capabilities on the three key geopolitical regions of the world:Ā Europe, theĀ Persian Gulf, andĀ Northeast Asia.
History
Christopher Layne[1]Ā attributes the introduction of the term “offshore balancing” to himself in his 1997 article.[2]Ā Several experts on strategy, such asĀ John Mearsheimer[3],Ā Stephen Walt[4],Ā Robert Pape[5], Sumantra Maitra[6], Patrick Porter[7]Ā andĀ Andrew Bacevich, have embraced the approach. They argue that offshore balancing has its historical roots in British grand strategy regarding Europe, which was eventually adopted and pursued by the United States and Japan at various points in their history.Ā [8]
According to political scientistĀ John Mearsheimer, in his University of Chicago “American Grand Strategy” class, offshore balancing was the strategy used by the United States in the 1930s and also in the 1980ā1988 Iran-Iraq War. Mearsheimer argues that when the United States gave Lend-Lease aid to Britain in the 1940s, the United States engaged in offshore balancing by being the arsenal of democracy, not the fighter for it.
That is consistent with offshore balancing because the US initially did not want to commit American lives to the European conflict. The United States supported the losing side (Iraq) in theĀ IranāIraq WarĀ to prevent the development of aĀ regional hegemon, which could ultimately threaten US influence. Furthermore, offshore balancing can seem likeĀ isolationismĀ when a roughĀ balance of power in international relationsĀ exists, which was the case in the 1930s. It was also the strategy used during the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union.
Theory
The grand strategy of “offshore balancing” arguably permits a great power to maintain its power without the costs of large military deployments around the world. It can be seen as the informal-empire analogue toĀ federalismĀ in formal ones (for instance the proposal for theĀ Imperial FederationĀ in the lateĀ British Empire). Offshore balancing, as its name implies, is a grand strategy that can be pursue only by island states on the edges of Eurasia and by isolated great powers, such as the United States.
The strategy calls for such states to maintain a rough balance of power in the three key geopolitical regions of the world:Ā Europe, theĀ Persian Gulf, andĀ Northeast Asia. The three regions are the focus, since Europe and Northeast Asia are the major industrial centers of the world, which contain all of the otherĀ great powersĀ and the Persian Gulf for its importance to the global oil market. Outside of these regions, an offshore balancer should not worry about developments. Also, a state pursuing offshore balancing should first seek to pass the buck to local powers and intervene only if the threat is too great for the other powers in the region to handle.[9]
Notable thinkers associated with offshore balancing
^Ā Kennan, George (2012).Ā American Diplomacy Sixtieth-Anniversary Expanded Edition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. pp.Ā xiāxvi.
Walt pursued his undergraduate studies atĀ Stanford University. He first majored in chemistry with an eye to becoming a Biochemist. He then shifted to history, and finally to International Relations.[3]
After attaining his B.A., Walt began graduate work atĀ UC Berkeley, graduating with a M.A. in Political Science in 1978, and a Ph.D. in Political Science in 1983.
In a comprehensive 2005 article, “Taming American Power”, Walt argued that the US should “make its dominant position acceptable to others ā by using military force sparingly, by fostering greater cooperation with key allies, and, most important of all, by rebuilding its crumbling international image.” He proposed the US “resume its traditional role as an ‘offshore balancer'”, intervening “only when absolutely necessary” and keeping “its military presence as small as possible.”[10]
In a late 2011 article forĀ The National InterestĀ entitled “The End of the American Era”, Walt wrote that America is losing its position of world dominance.[11]
Walt gave a speech in 2013 to theĀ Norwegian Institute for Defence StudiesĀ entitled “Why does US foreign policy keep failing?” The Institute later described him as seeing “an overwhelming bias among US foreign policy institutions toward an activist foreign policy” and “a propensity to exaggerate threats, noting the chances of being struck by lightning have been far greater since 2001 than death by terrorist attack.” He also characterized the US as lacking “diplomatic skill and finesse” and advised Europeans “to think of themselves and not rely on the US for guidance or advice on solving their security issues.” Ultimately, he argued, “the United States is simply not skilled enough to run the world.”[12]
“Why are Americans so willing to pay taxes in order to support a world-girdling national security establishment,” asked Walt in 2013, “yet so reluctant to pay taxes to have better schools, health care, roads, bridges, subways, parks, museums, libraries, and all the other trappings of a wealthy and successful society?” He said this question was especially puzzling given that “the United States is the most secure power in history and will remain remarkably secure unless it keeps repeating the errors of the past decade or so.”[13]
Foreign policy views
A critic ofĀ military interventionism, Walt stated, “Hawks like to portray opponents of military intervention as ‘isolationist’ because they know it is a discredited political label. Yet there is a coherent case for a more detached and selective approach to U.S. grand strategy, and one reason that our foreign policy establishment works so hard to discredit is their suspicion that a lot of Americans might find it convincing if they weren’t constantly being reminded about looming foreign dangers in faraway places. The arguments in favor of a more restrained grand strategy are far from silly, and the approach makes a lot more sense to than neoconservatives’ fantasies of global primacy or liberal hawks’ fondness for endless quasi-humanitarian efforts to reform whole regions.”[14]
Europe
In 1998, Walt wrote that “deep structural forces” were “beginning to pull Europe and America apart.”[15]
Walt argues thatĀ NATOĀ must be sustained because of four major areas where close cooperation is beneficial to European and American interest.[16]
Defeating international terrorism; Walt sees a need for cooperation between Europe and the United States in managing terrorist networks and stopping the flow of money to terror cells.[16]
Limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction; Walt argues that anti-proliferation efforts are most successful when Europe and the U.S. work in concert to bring loose nuclear material into responsible custody. He cites the case of Libya’s willingness to abandon its nascent fission program after being pressured multilaterally as evidence of this.[16]
Managing the world economy; lowering barriers to trade and investment particularly between the U.S. and the E.U. will accelerate economic growth. Notable differences in trade policy stem mainly in areas of agricultural policy.[16]
Dealing with failed states; failed states are breeding grounds for anti-Western movements. Managing failed states such as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia require a multinational response since the U.S. has insufficient wealth to modernise and rebuild these alone. In this area European allies are especially desirable because they have more experience with peacekeeping and “nation-building”.[16]
Eastern Europe and Russia
Walt believes extending invitations forĀ NATOĀ membership to countries in the formerĀ Soviet blocĀ is a “dangerous and unnecessary goal” and that nations such asĀ UkraineĀ ought to be “neutral buffer state(s) in perpetuity”.[17]Ā From this perspective, he believed that arming Ukrainian armed forces after theĀ annexation of the Crimea by RussiaĀ “is a recipe for a longer and more destructive conflict.”[17]
Middle East
Walt said in December 2012 that America’s “best course in the Middle East would be to act as an ‘offshore balancer’: ready to intervene if the balance of power is upset, but otherwise keeping our military footprint small. We should also have normal relationship with states like Israel and Saudi Arabia, instead of the counterproductive ‘special relationships’ we have today.”[18]
An article by Stephen Walt, ā³What Should We Do if the Islamic State Wins? Live with itā³, appeared on June 10, 2015 inĀ Foreign Policy Magazine.[19]Ā He explained his view that the Islamic State is unlikely to grow into a long-lasting world power onĀ Point of Inquiry, the podcast of theĀ Center for InquiryĀ in July 2015.[20]
Israel
Walt has been a critic of theĀ Israel lobby in the United StatesĀ and the influence he says it has onĀ foreign policy. He wrote that President Obama erred by breaking with the principles in his Cairo speech by allowing continuedĀ Israeli settlementĀ activity and by participating in a “well-coordinated assault” against theĀ Goldstone Report.[4]
Walt suggested in 2010 that, owing to State Department diplomatĀ Dennis Ross‘s alleged partiality toward Israel, he might give President Obama advice that was against US interests.[21]Ā Robert Satloff, executive director of theĀ Washington Institute for Near East PolicyĀ (WINEP), defended Ross and criticized Walt, in a piece published byĀ Foreign AffairsĀ (which had published Walt’s piece a few days earlier).[22]Ā Satloff wrote that Ross’s connection to WINEP is innocuous (Ross was a distinguished fellow at WINEP throughout George W. Bush’s administration, and Mearsheimer and Walt’s book described WINEP as “part of the core” of the Israel lobby in the United States) and that Walt mistakenly believes the U.S. cannot simultaneously “advance strategic partnership both with Israel and with friendly Arab and Muslim states”[22]
After theĀ Itamar attack, in which a Jewish family was killed on theĀ West BankĀ in March 2011, Walt condemned the murderers, but added that “while we are at it, we should not spare the other parties who have helped create and perpetuate the circumstances”, listing “every Israeli government since 1967, for actively promoting the illegal effort to colonize these lands”, “Palestinian leaders who have glorified violence”, and “the settlers themselves, some of whom routinely use violence to intimidate the Palestinians who live in the lands they covet”.[23]
Walt criticized the US for voting against a Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s West Bank settlements, calling the vote a “foolish step” because “the resolution was in fact consistent with the official policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.”[24]
Iran
Walt has frequently criticized America’s policy with respect toĀ Iran. In 2011, Walt told an interviewer that the American reaction to an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States “might be part of a larger American diplomatic effort to put Iran on the hot seat.”[25]
“Washington continues to insist on a near-total Iranian capitulation,” wrote Walt in December 2012. “And because Iran has been effectively demonized here in America, it would be very hard for President Obama to reach a compromise and then sell it back home.”[26]
Walt said in November 2013 that “Americans often forget just how secure the United States is, especially compared with other states,” thanks to its power, resources, and geography, and thus “routinely blows minor threats out of all proportion. I mean: Iran has a defense budget of about $10 billion…yet we manage to convince ourselves that Iran is a Very Serious Threat to U.S. vital interests. Ditto the constant fretting about minor-league powers like Syria, North Korea, Muammar al-Qaddafi’s Libya, and other so-called ‘rogue states.'” Therefore, whatever happens in the Middle East, “the United States can almost certainly adjust and adapt and be just fine.”[13]
Libya
After visitingĀ Libya, Walt wrote inĀ Foreign PolicyĀ in January 2010 that while “Libya is far from a democracy, it also doesn’t feel like other police states that I have visited. I caught no whiff of an omnipresent security serviceāwhich is not to say that they aren’t there…. The Libyans with whom I spoke were open and candid and gave no sign of being worried about being overheard or reported or anything like that. … I tried visiting various political websites from my hotel room and had no problems, although other human rights groups report that Libya does engage in selective filtering of some political websites critical of the regime. It is also a crime to criticize Qaddafi himself, the government’s past human rights record is disturbing at best, and the press in Libya is almost entirely government-controlled. Nonetheless, Libya appears to be more open than contemporary Iran or China and the overall atmosphere seemed far less oppressive than most places I visited in the old Warsaw Pact.”[27]
David E. Bernstein, Foundation Professor at theĀ George Mason University School of Law, criticized Walt in 2011 for accepting funding from the Libyan government for a trip to Libya, where he addressed that country’s Economic Development Board and then wrote what Bernstein called “a puff piece” about his visit. Bernstein said it was ironic that “Walt, after fulminating about the American domestic ‘Israel Lobby'” had thus become “a part of the ‘Libya lobby'”. Bernstein found it ironic that “Walt, a leading critic of the friendship the U.S. and Israel, concludes his piece with the hope ‘that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship.’ Because, you know, Israel is so much nastier than Qaddafi’s Libya.”[28]
Under the headline “Is Stephen Walt Blind, a Complete Fool, or a Big Liar?”,Ā Martin PeretzĀ of theĀ New RepublicĀ mocked Walt for praising Libya, which Peretz called a “murderous place” and for viewing its dictator as “civilized”. Peretz contrasted Walt’s view of Libya, which, Peretz noted, he had visited for less than a day.[29]
Syria
In August 2013, Walt argued that even if it turned out thatĀ Bashar al-AssadĀ ofĀ SyriaĀ had used chemical weapons, the U.S. should not intervene. “Dead is dead, no matter how it is done”, wrote Walt. Yes, “Obama may be tempted to strike because he foolishly drew a ‘red line’ over this issue and feels his credibility is now at stake. But following one foolish step with another will not restore that lost standing.”[30]Ā In September 2013, Walt wrote an open letter asking his congressman to vote against a strike on Syria. Dr. Josef Olmert pointed out “at least two glaring inaccuracies”, including Walt’s failure to recognize that Syria is already a failed state and already riven by sectarian struggle, “something that ‘realist’ liberals find somehow hard to accept.” Olmert noted that despite Walt’s professed belief that Israel is at the center of all Middle East conflicts, Israel in fact has nothing to do with the conflicts in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, or other countries in the region, which “are mostly the makings of the Arabs, ones which ought to be solved by them.”[31]
Asia
Walt posits that offshore balancing is the most desirable strategy when dealing withĀ China.[32][33]Ā In 2011 Walt argued that China will seek to gain regional hegemony and a broad sphere of influence in Asia which was comparable in size to the USA’s position in the western hemisphere.[32]Ā If this happens, he predicts that China would be secure enough on the mainland to give added attention to shaping events to its favour in far flung areas. Given that China is resource poor, the nation will likely aim to safeguard vital sea lanes in areas such as the Persian Gulf.[34][35]
In a December 2012 interview, Walt said that “the United States does not help its own cause by exaggerating Chinese power. We should not base our policy today on what China might become twenty or thirty years down the road.”[36]
“Balance of Threat” theory
Walt developed the ‘balance of threat‘ theory, which defined threats in terms of aggregate power, geographic proximity, offensive power, and aggressive intentions. It is a modification of the “balance of power” theory developed by neorealist Kenneth Waltz.[37]
Snowden case
In July 2013, Walt argued that President Obama should giveĀ Edward SnowdenĀ an immediate pardon. “Mr Snowden’s motives,” wrote Walt, “were laudable: he believed fellow citizens should know their government was conducting a secret surveillance programme enormous in scope, poorly supervised and possibly unconstitutional. He was right.” History, Walt suggested, “will probably be kinder to Mr Snowden than to his pursuers, and his name may one day be linked to the other brave men and women āĀ Daniel Ellsberg,Ā Martin Luther King Jr,Ā Mark Felt,Ā Karen SilkwoodĀ and so on ā whose acts of principled defiance are now widely admired.”[38]
Books
In his 1987 bookĀ The Origins of Alliances, Walt examines the way in which alliances are made, and “proposes a fundamental change in the present conceptions of alliance systems.”[39]
Revolution and WarĀ (1996) exposes “the flaws in existing theories about the relationship between revolution and war” by studying in detail the French, Russian, and Iranian revolutions and providing briefer views of the American, Mexican, Turkish, and Chinese revolutions.[40]
Taming American PowerĀ (2005) provides a thorough critique of U.S. strategy from the perspective of its adversaries.[41]Ā Anatol LievenĀ called it “a brilliant contribution to the American foreign policy debate.”[42]
In March 2006,Ā John MearsheimerĀ and Walt, then academic dean of theĀ Kennedy School of Government, published a working paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”[43]Ā and an article entitled “The Israel Lobby” in theĀ London Review of BooksĀ on the negative effects of “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.” They defined the Israel lobby as “the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.”[44]Ā Mearsheimer and Walt took the position that “What the Israel lobby wants, it too often gets.”[45]
The articles, as well as the bestsellingĀ bookĀ Walt and Mearsheimer later developed, generated considerable media coverage throughout the world. Contending that Walt and Mearsheimer are members of a “school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started”,Ā Christopher HitchensĀ concluded that, “Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem….”[46]Ā Former U.S. AmbassadorĀ Edward PeckĀ wrote the “tsunami” of responses condemning the report proved the existence of the lobby and “Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby’s views of Israel’s interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies.”[47]
Mearsheimer proposed the theory ofĀ offensive realismĀ which describes the interaction betweenĀ great powersĀ as dominated by aĀ rational desireĀ to achieveĀ hegemonyĀ in a world of insecurity and uncertainty regarding other states’ intentions. He wasĀ a vocal opponentĀ of theĀ Iraq WarĀ in 2003 and was almost alone in opposing Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 and predicted that, without a deterrent, they wouldĀ face Russian aggression.
His most controversial views concern alleged influence by interest groups over US government actions in theĀ Middle EastĀ which he wrote about inĀ The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. In accordance with his theory, Mearsheimer considers that China’s growing power will likely bring it into conflict with the United States. His work is frequently taught to and read by twenty-first century students ofĀ political scienceĀ andĀ international relations.
Early years
Mearsheimer was born in December 1947 inĀ Brooklyn,Ā New York. He was raised in New York City until the age of eight, when his parents moved his family toĀ Croton-on-Hudson, New York, a suburb located inĀ Westchester County.[4]Ā When he was 17, Mearsheimer enlisted in theĀ U.S. Army. After one year as an enlisted member, he chose to attend theĀ United States Military AcademyĀ atĀ West Point. He attended West Point from 1966 to 1970. After graduation, he served for five years as an officer in theĀ U.S. Air Force.[5][6]
Since 1982, Mearsheimer has been a member of theĀ facultyĀ of the Department of Political Science Faculty at theĀ University of Chicago.[7]Ā He became anĀ associate professorĀ in 1984, aĀ full professorĀ in 1987, and was appointed the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in 1996. From 1989 to 1992, he served as chairman of the department. He also holds a position as a faculty member in theĀ Committee on International RelationsĀ graduate program, and is the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy.[8]
Mearsheimer has won several teaching awards. He received the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching when he was a graduate student at Cornell in 1977, and he won the Quantrell Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching at the University of Chicago in 1985. In addition, he was selected as aĀ Phi Beta KappaĀ Visiting Scholar for the 1993ā1994 academic year. In that capacity, he gave a series of talks at eight colleges and universities. In 2003, he was elected to theĀ American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[8]
Work
Conventional deterrence
Mearsheimer’s first bookĀ Conventional DeterrenceĀ (1983) addresses the question of how decisions to start a war depend on the projected outcome of military conflict. In other words, how do decision makers’ beliefs about the outcome of war affect the success or failure of deterrence? Mearsheimer’s basic argument is that deterrence is likely to work when the potential attacker believes that a successful attack will be unlikely and costly. If the potential attacker, however, has reason to believe the attack will likely succeed and entail low costs, then deterrence is likely to break down. This is now widely accepted to be the way the principle of deterrence works. Specifically, Mearsheimer argues that the success of deterrence is determined by the strategy available to the potential attacker. He lays out three strategies. First, a war-of-attrition strategy, which entails a high level of uncertainty about the outcome of war and high costs for the attacker. Second, a limited-aims strategy, which entails fewer risks and lower costs. And, third, aĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy, which provides a way to defeat the enemy rapidly and decisively, with relatively low costs. For Mearsheimer, failures in the modern battlefield are due mostly to the potential attacker’s belief that it can successfully implement aĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy in which tanks and other mechanized forces are employed swiftly to effect a deep penetration and disrupt the enemy’s rear.[9]Ā The other two strategies are unlikely to lead to deterrence failures because they would entail a low probability of success accompanied by high costs (war of attrition) or limited gains and the possibility of the conflict turning into a war of attrition (limited aims). If the attacker has a coherentĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy available, however, an attack is likely to ensue, as its potential benefits outweigh the costs and risks of starting a war.[10]
Besides analyzing cases fromĀ World War IIĀ and theĀ ArabāIsraeli conflict, Mearsheimer extrapolates implications from his theory for the prospects of conventional deterrence inĀ Central EuropeĀ during the lateĀ Cold War. Here, he argues that aĀ SovietĀ attack is unlikely because the Soviet military would be unable to successfully implement aĀ blitzkriegĀ strategy. The balance of forces, the difficulty of advancing rapidly with mechanized forces through Central Europe, and the formidableĀ NATOĀ forces opposing such a Soviet attack made it unlikely, in Mearsheimer’s view, that the Soviets would start a conventional war in Europe.[11]
Nuclear proliferation and nuclear deterrence
In 1990 Mearsheimer published an essay[12]Ā where he predicted that Europe would revert to aĀ multipolarĀ environment similar to that in the first half of the twentieth century if American and Soviet forces left following the end of theĀ Cold War. In another article that year, inĀ The Atlantic, he predicted that this multipolar environment would increase nuclear proliferation in Europe, especially in Germany.[13]
In this essay and in the 1993Ā Foreign AffairsĀ article “The case for a Ukrainian nuclear deterrent”,[14]Ā he argued that to reduce the dangers of war, the United States should encourage Germany andĀ UkraineĀ to develop aĀ nuclear arsenal, while working to prevent the rise of hyper-nationalism. Mearsheimer presented several possible scenarios for a post-Cold-War Europe from which American and Russian forces had departed. He believed that a Europe with nuclear proliferation was most likely to remain at peace, because without a nuclear deterrent Germany would be likely to once more try to conquer the continent (See pages 32ā33).[12]Ā Mearsheimer argued that it would be strategically unwise forĀ UkraineĀ to surrender its nuclear arsenal (remnants of the Soviet stockpile). However, in 1994Ā Ukraine consentedĀ to get rid of its entire former Soviet nuclear stockpile, a process that was complete by 1996. When challenged on the former assertion at a lecture given to the International Politics department at theĀ University of WalesĀ inĀ Aberystwyth, he maintained that in spite ofĀ European integrationĀ and expansion, he still believed that his predictions would come true if the United States military left Europe.[15]
Also, in op-ed pieces written in 1998 and 2000 forĀ The New York Times, Mearsheimer supported India’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons. In support of this position, he argued that India has good strategic reasons to want a nuclear deterrent, especially in order to balance against China andĀ Pakistan, guaranteeing regional stability. He also criticized United StatesĀ counter-proliferationĀ policy towards India, which he considered unrealistic and harmful to American interests in the region.[16]
Offensive neorealism
Mearsheimer is the leading proponent ofĀ offensive neorealism. It is a structural theory which, unlike theĀ classical realismĀ ofĀ Hans Morgenthau, places the principal emphasis on security competition among great powers within the anarchy of the international system, and not principally on the human nature of statesmen and diplomats. In contrast to another structural realist theory, theĀ defensive neorealismĀ ofĀ Kenneth Waltz, offensive neorealism maintains that states are not satisfied with a given amount of power, but seek hegemony for security because the anarchic makeup of the international system creates strong incentives for states to seek opportunities to gain power at the expense of competitors.[17]Ā Mearsheimer summed this view up in his 2001 bookĀ The Tragedy of Great Power Politics:
Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.[18]
Mearsheimer usually does not believe it is possible for a state to become a globalĀ hegemonĀ and occasionally recognizes the global hegemon as an accomplished fact (see chapter “Night Watchman” below). When the global hegemon is theoretically impossible, it is because there is too much landmass and too many oceans which he posits have effective stopping power and act as giant moats. Instead he believes that states can only achieveĀ regional hegemony. Furthermore, he argues that states attempt to prevent other states from becoming regional hegemons, since peer competitors could interfere in a state’s affairs. States which have achieved regional hegemony, such as the U.S., will act as offshore balancers, interfering in other regions only when the great powers in those regions are not able to prevent the rise of a hegemon.
Endorsement of E. H. Carr
In a 2004 speech, Mearsheimer praised the British historianĀ E. H. CarrĀ for his 1939 bookĀ The Twenty Years’ CrisisĀ and argued that Carr was correct when he claimed that international relations was a struggle of all against all with states always placing their own interests first.[20]Ā Mearsheimer maintained that Carr’s points were still as relevant for 2004 as for 1939, and went on to deplore what he claimed was the dominance of “idealist” thinking about international relations among British academic life.[20]
Night Watchman
Night WatchmanĀ is “global hegemon” in Mearsheimer’s terminologyātheoretical impossibility as stated inĀ The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.[21]Ā Nevertheless, in 1990 Mearsheimer mentioned an existing “watchman”: Democracies lived at peace because “America’s hegemonic position in NATO… mitigated the effects of anarchy on the Western democracies and induced cooperation among them … With the United States serving as aĀ night watchman, fears about relative gains among the Western European states were mitigatedā¦”[22]
Afterwards, Mearsheimer lost the watchman. A decade later, he described the “international anarchy” as having not changed with the end of the Cold War, “and there are few signs that such change is likely any time soon. States remain the principal actors in world politics and there is still noĀ night watchmanĀ standing above them.”[23]Ā Five more years later, Mearsheimer confirmed that “in an anarchic system there is noĀ night watchmanĀ for state to call when trouble comes knocking at their door.”[24]
Precisely two decades since Mearsheimer detected the watchman in the world for the last time, he rediscovered him again. Watchman exists and, moreover, keeps Europe at peace. The article titled by question “Why Is Europe Peaceful Today?” unambiguously answers: “The reason is simple: the United States is by far the most powerful country in the world and it effectively acts as aĀ night watchman.”[25]
Gulf War
In January and early February 1991, Mearsheimer published two op-eds in theĀ Chicago TribuneĀ and theĀ New York TimesĀ arguing that the war to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi forces should be quick and lead to a decisive US victory, with less than 1,000 American casualties. This view countered the conventional wisdom at the start of the war, that predicted a conflict lasting for months and costing thousands of American lives. Mearsheimer’s argument was based on several points. First, the Iraqi Army was a Third World military, unprepared to fight mobile armored battles. Second, US armored forces were better equipped and trained. Third, US artillery was also far better than its Iraqi counterpart. Fourth, US airpower, unfettered by the weak Iraqi air force, should prove devastating against Iraqi ground forces. Fifth and finally, the forward deployment of Iraqi reserves boded ill for their ability to counter US efforts to penetrate the Iraqi defense line along the SaudiāKuwaiti border. These predictions came true in the course of the war.[26][27]
Noelle-Neumann controversy
In October 1991, Mearsheimer was drawn into a bitter controversy at the University of Chicago regardingĀ Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a visiting professor from Germany. Noelle-Neumann was a prominent German pollster and a leading academic on public opinion research, who authored the highly regarded book,Ā The Spiral of Silence. The debate centered on an article written byĀ Leo BogartĀ called “The Pollster and the Nazis”. It described Noelle-Neumann’s past employment as a writer and editor for the Nazi newspaperĀ Das ReichĀ from 1940ā42. Noelle-Neumann’s response to the article was to claim “texts written under a dictatorship more than 50 years ago cannot be read as they were in 1937, 1939 or 1941. Severed from the time and place where they were written, they are no longer real, for reality is in part based on time and place.”[28]
As chairman of Chicago’s political science department at the time, Mearsheimer sat down with Noelle-Neumann to discuss the article and the allegations. After meeting with her for over three hours, Mearsheimer publicly declared, “I believe that Noelle-Neumann was an anti-Semite,”[28]Ā and he spearheaded a campaign asking her for an apology.[29]Ā He joined other University of Chicago faculty in writing a joint piece for Commentary Magazine that reacted to Noelle-Neumann’s reply to the accusation against her. They declared, “by providing rhetorical support for the exclusion of Jews, her words helped make the disreputable reputable, the indecent decent, the uncivilized civilized, and the unthinkable thinkable.”[30]Ā Mearsheimer said “Knowing what we know now about the Holocaust, there is no reason for her not to apologize. To ask somebody who played a contributing role in the greatest crime of the 20th century to say ‘I’m sorry’ is not unreasonable.”[31]
In March 2006, Mearsheimer andĀ Stephen Walt, began to write jointly about the Israel lobby. Stephen Walt was the former academic dean and professor of International Relations at theĀ HarvardĀ Kennedy School of Government, and together they published aĀ Harvard UniversityĀ Kennedy School of GovernmentĀ working paper[32]Ā and aĀ London Review of BooksĀ article[33]Ā discussing the power of theĀ Israel lobbyĀ in shaping theĀ foreign policy of the United States. They define the Israel lobby as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”. They emphasize that it is not appropriate to label it a “Jewish lobby“, because not allĀ JewsĀ feel a strong attachment toĀ IsraelĀ and because some of the individuals and groups who work to foster U.S. support for Israel are not Jewish; according to Mearsheimer and Walt,Ā Christian ZionistsĀ play an important role. Finally, they emphasize that the lobby is not aĀ cabalĀ or a conspiracy but simply a powerful interest group like theĀ National Rifle AssociationĀ or the farm lobby. Their core argument is that the policies that the lobby pushes are not in the United States’Ā national interest, nor ultimately that ofĀ Israel. Those pieces generated extensive media coverage and led to a wide-ranging and often heated debate between supporters and opponents of their argument. The article was subsequently turned into a book entitledĀ The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Statements on Israeli wars and a Palestinian state
Mearsheimer was critical ofĀ Israel’s war against LebanonĀ in the summer of 2006. He argued that Israel’s strategy was “doomed to fail” because it was based on the “faulty assumption” that Israeli air power could defeat Hezbollah, which was essentially a guerrilla force. The war, he argued, was a disaster for the Lebanese people, as well as a “major setback” for the United States and Israel.[34]Ā The lobby, he said, played a key role in enabling Israel’s counterproductive response by preventing the United States from exercising independent influence.[35]
Mearsheimer was also critical of Israel’sĀ offensive against Hamas in the Gaza StripĀ that began in December 2008. He argued that it would not eliminate Hamas’s capability to fire missiles and rockets at Israel, and that it would not cause Hamas to end its fight with Israel. In fact, he argued that relations between Israel and the Palestinians were likely to get worse in the years ahead.[36]
Mearsheimer emphasizes that the only hope for Israel to end its conflict with the Palestinians is to end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to have their own state in Gaza and the West Bank. Otherwise, Israel is going to turn itself into an “apartheid state.” That would be a disastrous outcome not only for Israel, but also for the United States and especially the Palestinians.[37]
Mearsheimer’s criticisms of Israel further extended to Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. In remarks made at the International Spy Museum in 2010, Mearsheimer asserted that a nuclear Israel was contrary to U.S. interests and questioned Israel’s accountability in the matter, stating that there was “no accountability for Israel on any issue” because, he surmised, “The Israelis can do almost anything and get away with it.”[38]
The “Future of Palestine” lecture
In April 2010, Mearsheimer delivered theĀ Hisham B. SharabiĀ Memorial Lecture at theĀ Palestine CenterĀ in Washington, DC, which he titled “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners.” He argued that “the two-state solution is now a fantasy” because Israel will incorporate the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into a “Greater Israel”, which would become anĀ apartheidĀ state. This state, according to Mearsheimer, would not be politically viable, most American Jews would not support it, and it would eventually become a democratic bi-national state, politically dominated by its Palestinian majority. He suggested that “American Jews who care deeply about Israel” could be divided into three categories: the “newĀ Afrikaners” who will support Israel even if it is an apartheid state, “righteous Jews,” who believe that individual rights are universal, and apply equally to Jews and Palestinians, and the largest group who he called the “great ambivalent middle”. He concludes that most of the “great ambivalent middle” would not defend an apartheid Israel because “American Jews are among the staunchest defenders of traditional liberal values” resulting in the “new Afrikaners” becoming increasingly marginalized over time. Mearsheimer stated that he “would classify most of the individuals who head the Israel lobby’s major organizations as “‘new Afrikaners'” and specifically listedĀ Abraham FoxmanĀ of theĀ Anti-Defamation League,Ā David HarrisĀ of theĀ American Jewish Committee,Ā Malcolm HoenleinĀ of theĀ Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,Ā Ronald LauderĀ of theĀ World Jewish Congress,Ā Morton KleinĀ of theĀ Zionist Organization of America, as well as businessmen such asĀ Sheldon Adelson,Ā Lester Crown, andĀ Mortimer ZuckermanĀ and “media personalities” likeĀ Fred Hiatt,Ā Charles Krauthammer,Ā Bret StephensĀ andĀ Martin Peretz.[39]
Statements on Gilad Atzmon
In 2011, John Mearsheimer wrote ofĀ Gilad Atzmon‘s bookĀ The Wandering Who: “Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish.Ā The Wandering Who?Ā should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.”[40]
Atzmon has been called anĀ antisemiteĀ andĀ Holocaust denier, andĀ Jeffrey GoldbergĀ said the book espousedĀ Neo-NaziĀ views.[41]Ā Alan DershowitzĀ wrote an article in response titled: “Why are John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk Endorsing a Blatantly Anti-Semitic Book?” and the book “argues that Jews seek to control the world.”[42]
Mearsheimer said he had “no reason to amend it or embellish” his review,[41]Ā and defended his position. Writing with regard to the charge byĀ Jeffrey GoldbergĀ that Atzmon is anti-semitic, and by implication so is his own positive review of Atzmon’s work, Mearsheimer responded: “Atzmon’s basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists… It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the “Holocaust religion,” Zionism, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth.”[40][40]
The rise and containment of China
Mearsheimer asserts that China’s rise will not be peaceful[43][44][45]Ā and that the U.S. will seek to contain China and prevent it from achieving regional hegemony.[46][47][48][49]Ā Although military, and perhaps diplomatic containment of China is possible, economic containment of China is not.[50]Ā Mearsheimer believes that China will attempt to dominate the Indo-Pacific region just as, he asserts, the U.S. set out to dominate the western hemisphere. The motivation for doing so would be to gain a position of overwhelming security and superiority against its neighbors which it sees as potential challengers to its status.[51]Ā Additionally, he maintains that the U.S. will attempt to form a balancing coalition that consists primarily of India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia to counter the growing strength and power projection capabilities of China.[52]Ā He points to increased alliances and warming U.S.āVietnam and U.S.āIndia relations as evidence of this.[53][54]
Mearsheimer asserts that Australia should be concerned with China’s accretion of power because it will lead to an intense security competition between China and the US that would destabilize the region.[55]Ā He also argues that China is implementing the militarily aggressive philosophy of the U.S. naval strategistĀ Alfred Thayer Mahan, who argued for sea control and decisive battle.[51]
Why Leaders Lie
Mearsheimer wrote a book that analyzes lying in international politics. He argues inĀ Why Leaders LieĀ (Oxford University Press, 2011) that leaders lie to foreign audiences as well as their own people because they think it is good for their country. For example, he maintains that President Franklin D. Roosevelt lied about theĀ GreerĀ incidentĀ in September 1941, because he was deeply committed to getting the United States into World War II, which he thought was in America’s national interest.[56]
His two main findings are that leaders actually do not lie very much to other countries, and that democratic leaders are actually more likely thanĀ autocratsĀ to lie to their own people.[57]Ā Thus, he starts his book by saying that it is not surprising that Saddam Hussein did not lie about havingĀ WMDāhe truthfully said he had noneābut that George Bush and some of his key advisors did lie to the American people about the threat from Iraq. Mearsheimer argues that leaders are most likely to lie to their own people in democracies that fight wars of choice in distant places. He says that it is difficult for leaders to lie to other countries because there is not much trust among them, especially when security issues are at stake, and you need trust for lying to be effective. He says that it is easier for leaders to lie to their own people because there is usually a good deal of trust between them.[56]
Types of lies
Mearsheimer does not consider the moral dimension of international lying, which he views from a utilitarian perspective. He argues that there are five types of international lies.[58]
Inter-state liesĀ are where the leader of one country lies to a leader of another country, or more generally, any foreign audience, to induce a desired reaction.
Fear-mongeringĀ is where a leader lies to his or her own domestic public.
Strategic cover-upsĀ employ lies to prevent controversial policies and deals from being made known publicly.
Nationalist mythsĀ are stories about a country’s past that portray that country in a positive light while its adversaries in a negative light.
Liberal liesĀ are given to clear up the negative reputation of institutions, individuals, or actions.
He explains the reasons why leaders pursue each of these different kinds of lies. His central thesis is that leaders lie more frequently to domestic audiences than to leaders of other states. This is because international lying can have negative effects includingĀ blowbackĀ andĀ backfiring. “Blowback” is where telling international lies helps cause a culture of deceit at home. “Backfiring” is where telling a lie leads to a failed policy. He also emphasizes that there are two other kinds of deception besides lying: “concealment,” which is where a leader remains silent about an important matter, and “spinning,” which is where a leader tells a story that emphasizes the positive and downplays or ignores the negative.[56]
The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Yale University Press, 2018)
In his 2018 book,Ā The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, Mearsheimer presents a critique of the geopolitical strategy he refers to as ‘liberal hegemony’. Mearsheimer’s definition of liberal hegemony includes a three-part designation of it as an extension of Woodrow Wilson’s original initiatives to make a world safe by turning its governments into democracies, turning geopolitical economic initiatives towards open markets compatible with democratic governments, and thirdly opening up and promoting other democratically liberal international social and culture societies on a global scale of inclusion. Mearsheimer states in an interview broadcast on CSPAN that this represents a ‘great delusion’ and that much more weight should be associated withĀ nationalismĀ as a policy of enduring geopolitical value rather than the delusions he associated withĀ liberalĀ hegemony.
After the break up of the Soviet Union, the new independent Ukraine had a large arsenal of nuclear weapons on its territory. However, in 1994 Ukraine agreed to give up nuclear arms, became a member of theĀ Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and within two years had removed all atomic weapons. Almost alone among observers, Mearsheimer was opposed to that decision because he saw a Ukraine without a nuclear deterrent as likely to be subjected to aggression by Russia.Ā [59]
2014 Crimean Crisis
In September 2014 Mearsheimer wrote the article “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin” published inĀ Foreign Affairs. The essay was highly critical of American policy towards Russia since the conclusion of the Cold War.[60]Ā Mearsheimer argued that Russian intervention inĀ CrimeaĀ and Ukraine had been motivated by what he saw as the irresponsible strategic objectives of NATO in Eastern Europe. He compared US-led NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and planned inclusion of Ukraine to the hypothetical scenario of a Chinese military alliance in North America, stating, “Imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico.”
Mearsheimer argued that Russia’s annexation of the Crimea was fueled by concerns that it would lose access to itsĀ Black Sea FleetĀ naval base atĀ SevastopolĀ if Ukraine continued to move towards NATO and European integration. Mearsheimer concluded that US policy should shift towards recognising Ukraine as aĀ buffer stateĀ between NATO and Russia rather than attempting to absorb Ukraine into NATO.[60][citation needed]Ā Mearsheimer’s article provokedĀ Michael McFaulĀ andĀ Stephen SestanovichĀ to publish their response in November/December 2014 issue ofĀ Foreign Affairs.[61]
China
Mearsheimer has been critical of US policy toward China, which he regards as fated to engage in “intense security competition” and possible war, if it continues on its steep trajectory of economic growth.[62]Ā His recommended US policy towards China is containment, which calls for the US to keep China from occupying territory and expanding its influence in Asia.[63]Ā Mearsheimer recommended that US policy makers form a balancing coalition with China’s neighbors. According to Mearsheimer, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam could be potential allies of the United States against a great-power China’s attempt to dominate.[62]
Mearsheimer argued in a 2019 article forĀ International SecurityĀ that the “liberal international orderĀ was crumbling by 2019″ and that the liberal order will be replaced by “three realist orders: a thin international order that facilitates cooperation, and two bounded ordersāone dominated by China, the other by the United Statesāpoised for waging security competition between them.”[64]
Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations.
John J. Mearsheimer and Stepen M. Walt from Harvard University wrote the article Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations. They point out that in recent years International Relations scholars have devoted less effort to creating and refining theories or using them to guide empirical research. Instead there is a focus on what they call a simplistic hypothesis testing which emphasizes discovering well-verified empirical regularities. They state that that is a mistake, because insufficient attention to theory leads to misspecified empirical models or misleading measures of key concepts. They also point out that because of the poor quality data in International Relations it is less likely that these efforts will produce cumulative knowledge. This will only lead to a short term gain and make International Relationship scholarship less useful to concerned citizens and policymakers.
Theories gives a scholar an overarching framework of the myriad realms of activity. Theories are like maps, they both aim to simplify a complex reality, but unlike maps theories provide a causal story where a theory says that one or more factors can explain a particular phenomenon. Theories attempt to simplify assumptions about the most relevant factors in the aim to explain how the world works. Some grand theories like realism or liberalism claim to explain broad patterns of state behavior while middle-range theories focus on more narrowly defined phenomena like coercion. Deterrence and economic sanctions. They list eight reasons why theories are important. The problems that arise from inadequate attention to theory is that it isn’t possible to construct good models or interpret statistical findings correctly. By privileging hypothesis testing this is overlooked. It might make sense to pay more attention to hypothesis testing if it produced a lot of useful knowledge about international relations, however, Mearsheimer and Walt claim that this is not the case and simplistic hypothesis test is inherently flawed. One of the consequences is that it will result in omitted variable bias. This is often treated as a methodological issue, though it should be treated as a theoretical matter. Selection bias is also a problem that arise from inadequate attention to theory. To examine this clearer the authors point out James Fearson’s critique of Paul Huth and Bruce Russett’s analyses of extended deterrence. Mearsheimer and Walt also point out that contemporary International Relations scholarship faces challenging measurement issues that are because of inadequate attention to theory and cause misleading measures. A few examples are given to support their claim, including Dan Reiter and Allan Stam’s work called Democracies at War. There Mearsheimer and Walt state that it is a sophisticated study that however contains questionable measures of key concepts and that the measure they employ to test their idea do not capture the theories core concepts. Poor data, absence of explanation and lack of cumulation is also some problems that arise from inadequate attention to theory by focusing too much on simplistic hypothesis testing.[65]
Personal Life
John Mearsheimer currently lives in Chicago and is married to his second wife, Pamela. They have 2 children together. John also has multiple children from his first marriage.
PUBLISHED:Ā 09:30 EDT, 27 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 10:49 EDT, 28 October 2019
Donald TrumpĀ announced Sunday morning thatĀ ISISĀ leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ as the result of a U.S. Special Ops forces raid on his hideout in northwestĀ Syria.
‘Last night the United State brought the world’s number one terrorist leader to justice. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead,’ Trump said from the Diplomatic Reception Room, where just a week earlier he announced a ceasefire between Turkey and the Kurds.
‘He was the founder and leader of ISIS, the most ruthless and violent terror organization anywhere in the world,’ he continued as he described the events of the raid.
Al-Baghdadi, the president confirmed, detonated his suicide vest, killing himself and three children, during an overnight targeted attack in Syria’s Idlib province.
The president touted the operation and al-Baghdadi’s death as ‘bigger than bin Laden.’ Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda and the terrorist leader behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, was killed in 2011 during a Navy SEALs operation during Barack Obama’s presidency.
‘This is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever. Osama bin Laden was big, but Osama bin Laden became big with the World Trade Center. This is a man who built a whole, as he would like to call it, a country,’ Trump said, referencing al-Baghdadi’s creation of the Islamic State.
Donald Trump addressed the nation Sunday morning, confirming that the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He said he had watched and monitored the whole operation Saturday night
Meeting in the situation room Saturday night (from left to right): National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, Vice President Mike Pence, Trump, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Mark Milley and Brig. General Marcus Evans
Trump also referred to al-Baghdadi and those who followed him as ‘losers,’ and lauded that no U.S. personnel were lost during the raid. He did say, however, that one ‘talented canine’ was injured.
‘I got to watch much of it. No personnel were lost in the operation, while a large number of Baghdadi’s fighters and companions were killed with him,’ Trump said during his rare Sunday morning remarks.
‘He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way,’ Trump continued, adding that Baghdadi drug three of his children with him. ‘They were led to certain death.’
‘He reached the end of the tunnel as our dogs chased him down. He ignited his vest, killing himself and the three children. His body was mutilated by the blast. the tunnel had caved in on it, in addition. But test results gave certain, immediate and totally positive identification. It was him. The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him,’ he detailed.
he White House confirmed that Trump watched and listened to the operations unfold in the Situation room Saturday night ā Sunday morning Syria time ā with National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Mark Milley and Brig. General Marcus Evans.
The president said, while claiming he’s been looking for Baghdadi ever since assuming office, that he’s potentially the only one better at ‘using the internet’ than ISIS forces.
‘A couple of weeks ago they were able to scope him out,’ Trump said of the U.S. intelligence community.
‘You know, these people are very smart, they are not into the use of cell phones any more. They’re very technically brilliant,’ the president said in reference to those working for ISIS.
‘You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump,’ he continued. ‘But they use the internet incredibly well and what they’ve done with the internet through recruiting and everything ā and that is why he died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming and crying, and frankly I think it’s something that should be brought out so that his followers and all of these young kids that want to leave various countries ā including the United States ā they should see how he died. He didn’t die a hero, he died a coward ā crying, whimpering, and screaming and bringing three kids with him to die. Certain death.’
The president teased Saturday night, ‘Something very big has just happened!’ and the White House also announced that night that the president would be ‘making a major statement’ Sunday morning from the White House.
Trump said he does not regret his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, which opened the way for Turkey to invade and target Kurdish forces.
Caliphate leader: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi detonated his own suicide vest during the targeted raid on his lair in Syria’s Idlib province and killed three of his children in the blast. He is shown in a still from a video released in April, having not been seen since he spoke at the Grand Mosque in Mosul in 2014
Syrians ride a motorcycle past a burnt vehicle near the site where a helicopter gunfire reportedly killed nine people near the northwestern Syrian village of Barisha
Al-Baghdadi arrived at the area of the raid 48 hours beforehand, Turkish officials said ā and the CIA assisted in locating him.
Information is now emerging over how the U.S. was able to track down Baghdadi, including details of his whereabouts from two inside informants.
A senior Iraqi intelligence official told theĀ Associated PressĀ that a few months ago an Iraqi aide to al-Baghdadi was killed in western Iraq by a U.S. airstrike, and his wife was arrested and handed over to Iraqi authorities.
The official indicated that the wife ended up being a key source of information on al-Baghdadiās whereabouts. The Iraqis who had her in custody were ultimately able to pass along to the U.S. coordinates on al-Baghdadi through information they learned from the aideās wife.
A second Iraqi security official said al-Baghdadiās brother-in-law was recently arrested by the Iraqis and also gave information on Baghdadiās whereabouts
The ISIS leader’s two wives, who were both wearing explosive devices that never detonated, were taken down. Several of his children were taken from the lair and are still alive. Several others were killed in the attack.
Trump said more people were killed than captured, but confirmed there are some in U.S. custody.
Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) confirmed on Sunday they had worked with the U.S. on a ‘successful’ operation against Islamic State.
‘Our strong and effective operations once again confirm our strength and determination to go after (Islamic State),’ the head of the SDF’s media office said.
The Syrian Democratic Forces is an alliance in the Syrian Civil War made up of primarily Kurdish, Arab and Assyrian/Syriac militias.
SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi took partial credit for taking down al-Baghdadi, but also thanked the president and U.S. Army in its efforts, which he said have been under way for almost half-a-year.
‘For five months there has been joint intel cooperation on the ground and accurate monitoring, until we achieved a joint operation to kill Abu Bakir al-Baghdadi. Thanks to everybody who participate in this great mission,’ Abdi tweeted, tagging Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
Al-Baghdadi, the leader of the so-called Islamic caliphate, blew himself up during the targeted attack on his lair in Syria’s Idlib province in the early hours of Sunday morning. His lair was in a village known for smuggling, and he arrived there 48 hours before the raid
The president also thanked those who had assisted in finding al-Baghdadi, participated in the raid and brought him to his death. He said that while the Kurds provided information that was useful in taking down al-Baghdadi, they did not assist in the military operations.
The ISIS leader has been among U.S. and Europe’s force’s most wanted figures since his chilling call to arms in 2014, which saw a shift away from the mass casualty attacks carried out by al-Qaeda in favor of smaller-scale acts of violence.
Shifting away from the airline hijackings and other mass-casualty attacks that came to define al-Qaeda, al-Baghdadi encouraged smaller-scale acts of violence that would be harder for law enforcement to prepare for and prevent.
He encouraged jihadists who could not travel to the caliphate to instead kill where they were using whatever weapon they had at their disposal, resulting in a series of devastating attacks in the UK and Europe.
His wordsĀ inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries other than Iraq and Syria, resulting in the deaths of at least 2,043 people,Ā CNNĀ reports.
Since 2016, the State Department has offered a reward of up to $25 million for information or intelligence that could lead to Baghdadi’s capture or death.
Al-Baghdadi led ISIS for the last five years, presiding over its ascendancy as it cultivated a barbaric reputation for beheadings and horrific executions.
These recordings, often noted for their high production values, were distributed online along with the ISIS propaganda magazine Dabiq.
He remained among the few ISIS commanders still at large despite multiple claims in recent years about his death and even as his so-called caliphate dramatically shrank, with many supporters who joined the cause either imprisoned or jailed.
A picture taken on October 27, 2019 shows a burnt vehicle at the site where a helicopter gunfire killed nine people near the northwestern Syrian village of Barisha in the province of Idlib near the border with Turkey
Trump teased, without explanation on Saturday that ‘Something very big has just happened!’ and the White House confirmed the president would be addressing the nation on Sunday morning
With a Ā£19.5 million ($25m) bounty on his head, al-Baghdadi had been far less visible in recent years, releasing only sporadic audio recordings, including one just last month in which he called on members of the extremist group to do all they could to free ISIS detainees and women held in jails and camps.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported an attack carried out by a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by a warplane.
The attacks were on positions where ISISĀ operatives were believed to be hiding in the Barisha area north of Idlib city, after midnight on Saturday-Sunday.
It said the helicopters targeted ISIS positions with heavy strikes for about 120 minutes, during which jihadists targeted the helicopters with heavy weapons.
The Syrian Observatory documented the death of nine people as a result of the coalition helicopter attack,Ā adding that the death toll is likely to rise due to the presence of a large number of wounded.
The strike came amid concerns that a recent American pullback from northeastern Syria could infuse new strength into the militant group, which had lost vast stretches of territory it had once controlled.
The purported audio was his first public statement since last April, when he appeared in a video for the first time in five years.
Reports suggest that al-Baghdadi, the elusive militant who has been the subject of an international manhunt for years, had been killed in Idlib, Syria
In 2014, he was a black-robed figure delivering a sermon from the pulpit of Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri, his only known public appearance.
He urged Muslims around the world to swear allegiance to the caliphate and obey him as its leader.
‘It is a burden to accept this responsibility to be in charge of you,’ he said in the video.
‘I am not better than you or more virtuous than you. If you see me on the right path, help me. If you see me on the wrong path, advise me and halt me. And obey me as far as I obey God.’
The death of such a high-value U.S. target comes amid a difficult political backdrop for Trump, who has been frustrated heavy media focus on the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, which he calls a bipartisan smear.
He has also faced withering criticism from both Republicans and Democrats alike for his U.S. troop withdrawal from northeastern Syria, which permitted Turkey to attack America’s Kurdish allies.
The rise and fall of the Islamic State
The Islamic State group erupted from the chaos of Syria and Iraq’s conflicts, declaring itself a ‘caliphate’ after conquering a giant stretch of territory.
Its territorial rule, which at its height in 2014 stretched across nearly a third of both Syria and Iraq, ended in March with a last stand by several hundred of its militants at a tiny Syrian village on the banks of the Euphrates near the border with Iraq.
But the militants have maintained a presence in both countries, and their shadowy leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had continued releasing messages urging them to keep up the fight.
Here are the key moments in the rise and fall of the Islamic State group:
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – who was also known as Caliph Ibrahim – released a propaganda video in 2014 where he addressed Muslim worshipers at a mosque in Mosul
April 2013 –Ā Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announces the merger of his group with al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria, forming the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
January 2014 –Ā Al-Baghdadi’s forces overrun the city of Fallujah in Iraq’s western Anbar province and parts of the nearby provincial capital of Ramadi. In Syria, they seize sole control of the city of Raqqa after driving out rival Syrian rebel factions, and it becomes their de facto capital.
February 2014 –Ā Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri disavows al-Baghdadi after the Iraqi militant ignores his demands that IS leave Syria.
June 2014 –Ā IS captures Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and pushes south as Iraqi forces crumble, eventually capturing Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit and reaching the outskirts of Baghdad. When they threaten Shiite holy sites, Iraq’s top Shiite cleric issues a call to arms, and masses of volunteers, largely backed and armed by Iran, join militias.
June 29, 2014 –Ā The group renames itself the Islamic State and declares the establishment of a self-styled ‘caliphate’ in its territories in Iraq and Syria. Al-Baghdadi is declared the caliph.
July 4, 2014 –Ā Al-Baghdadi makes his first public appearance, delivering a Friday sermon in Mosul’s historic al-Nuri Mosque. He urges Muslims around the world to swear allegiance to the caliphate and obey him as its leader.
August 2014 –Ā IS captures the town of Sinjar west of Mosul and begins a systematic slaughter of the tiny Yazidi religious community. Women and girls are kidnapped as sex slaves; hundreds remain missing to this day.
August 8, 2014 –Ā The U.S. launches its campaign of airstrikes against IS in Iraq.
September 22, 2014 –Ā The U.S.-led coalition begins an aerial campaign against IS in Syria.
January, 2015 –Ā Iraqi Kurdish fighters, backed by U.S.-led airstrikes, drive IS out of several towns north of Mosul. In Syria, Kurdish fighters backed by U.S. airstrikes repel an IS onslaught on the town of Kobani on the border with Turkey, the first significant defeat for IS.
April 1, 2015Ā – U.S.-backed Iraqi forces retake Tikrit, their first major victory against IS.
May 20, 2015 –Ā IS captures the ancient Syrian town of Palmyra, where the extremists later destroy archaeological treasures.
February 9, 2016 –Ā Iraqi forces recapture Ramadi after months of fighting and at enormous cost, with thousands of buildings destroyed. Almost the entire population fled the city.
June 26, 2016 – Fallujah is declared liberated by Iraqi forces after a five-week battle.
July 3, 2016 –Ā IS sets off a gigantic suicide truck bomb outside a Baghdad shopping mall, killing almost 300 people, the deadliest attack in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
October 17, 2016 –Ā Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announces the start of the operation to liberate Mosul.
Iraqi Army soldiers celebrate as they hold an IS flag, which they captured during a raid on a village outside Mosul in November 2016
November 5, 2016 – The U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces launch Operation Euphrates Wrath, the first of five operations aiming to retake Raqqa, starting with an encircling of the city.
January 24, 2017 –Ā Al-Abadi announces eastern Mosul has been ‘fully liberated’.
May 10, 2017 –Ā SDF captures the strategic Tabqa dam after weeks of battles and a major airlift operation that brought SDF fighters and their U.S. advisers to the area. The fall of the dam facilitated the push on Raqqa, about 25 miles away.
June 6, 2017 –Ā SDF fighters begin an attack on Raqqa from three sides, backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes.
June 18, 2017 –Ā Iraqi forces launch battle for Mosul’s Old City, the last IS stronghold there.
June 21, 2017 – IS destroys Mosul’s iconic al-Nuri Mosque and its 12th century leaning minaret as Iraqi forces close in.
July 10, 2017 – Iraqi PM declares victory over IS in Mosul and end of the extremists’ caliphate in Iraq.
October 17, 2017 – SDF takes full control of Raqqa after months of heavy bombardment that devastates the city.
September – December, 2017 – Syrian government forces, backed by Russian air power and Iranian forces, recapture IS territory on the western bank of the Euphrates River, seizing the cities of Deir el-Zour, Mayadin and Boukamal on the border with Iraq.
Isis lost its hold over Mosul in July 2017 but the city suffered severe bombing
August 23, 2018 – IS leader al-Baghdadi resurfaces in his first purported audio recording in almost a year; he urges followers to ‘persevere’ and continue fighting.
September 10, 2018 –Ā SDF launches a ground offensive, backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes, to take the last territory held by IS in Syria’s eastern province of Deir el-Zour.
March 23, 2019 – SDF declares the complete capture of Baghouz and the end of the Islamic State group’s territorial ‘caliphate’.
October 27, 2019 – President Donald Trump announced that al-Baghdadi was killed during a US. Special Ops forces raid on his hideout in northwest Syria. Trump said the ‘violent terror leader’ died after running into a dead-end tunnel, and detonating his suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children.
Story 2: Delusional Democrats Still Pushing Impeachment Despite No Evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors — Videos —
Varney: Dems still pushing impeachment despite al-Baghdadi triumph
Trump blasts Adam Schiff: ‘He’s a corrupt politician’
Trump calls impeachment inquiry a ālynchingā
Story 3: Joe Biden The Marathon Man For President — Videos
JOE BIDEN LEAD IS FADING: Could Pete Buttigieg Win the 2020 Democratic Nomination?
Joe Biden slips in latest New Hampshire poll
Biden unconcerned about Warrenās rise
Behind Bidenās bounce back
Joe Biden in Danger of Humiliating Loss in Iowa, Top Democrats Warn
2020 Daily Trail Markers: Biden campaigns in Iowa as others rise in polling
Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden In Statistical Dead Heat In Iowa: Poll | Morning Joe | MSNBC
Joe Biden Adds To Lead And Warren Surges In New NBC Poll Of 2020 Democrats | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
UPDATED DATAĀ 10/28/2019
POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE
The State of the Democratic Primary
On a daily basis, Morning Consult is surveying over 5,000 registered voters across the United States on the 2020 presidential election.Ā Every Monday, weāll update this pageĀ with the latest survey data, offering an in-depth guide to howĀ the race for the Democratic nomination is shaping up.
To receive an early look at this report, and other key 2020 data,Ā sign up here.
Whoās Leading Now
The figures are broken out among Democratic primary voters nationwide and in early primary states, which includes just voters who live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. The latest results are based on 15,431 survey interviews conducted between Oct. 21-27, 2019.
Hover over or click each line to track how support for candidates has changed week to week.
Select Options
All
None Select Options
Ā Andrew Yang
Ā Amy Klobuchar
Ā Bernie Sanders
Ā Beto O’Rourke
Ā Bill de Blasio
Ā Cory Booker
Ā Elizabeth Warren
Ā Joe Biden
Ā John Delaney
Ā Julian Castro
Ā Kamala Harris
Ā Marianne Williamson
Ā Michael Bennet
Ā Pete Buttigieg
Ā Steve Bullock
Ā Tulsi Gabbard
Ā Tom Steyer
Ā Tim Ryan
AMONG DEMOCRATIC VOTERSJan-13-201917-Feb24-Mar28-Apr2-Jun7-Jul11-Aug15-Sep20-Oct0%10%20%30%40%
Second Choices: Where Voters Could Migrate
After voters registered their first choice, they were asked a follow-up about whom they would choose as a second option. The results below show where the supporters for a selection of leading candidates could go next. Hover over or click cards to see more.
BIDEN SUPPORTERS
Elizabeth Warren
U.S. Senator
BIDEN SUPPORTERS
Second Choice Selections
Elizabeth Warren
28%
Bernie Sanders
26%
Pete Buttigieg
9%
WARREN SUPPORTERS
Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senator
WARREN SUPPORTERS
Second Choice Selections
Bernie Sanders
28%
Joe Biden
25%
Pete Buttigieg
14%
SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Joe Biden
Former Vice President
SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Second Choice Selections
Joe Biden
30%
Elizabeth Warren
28%
Kamala Harris
6%
BUTTIGIEG SUPPORTERS
Elizabeth Warren
U.S. Senator
BUTTIGIEG SUPPORTERS
Second Choice Selections
Elizabeth Warren
28%
Joe Biden
20%
Bernie Sanders
11%
HARRIS SUPPORTERS
Elizabeth Warren
U.S. Senator
HARRIS SUPPORTERS
Second Choice Selections
Elizabeth Warren
25%
Joe Biden
22%
Bernie Sanders
14%
Tracking Name Recognition and Favorability
Respondents were asked whether they had a favorable impression of each of the following, and also had the option of saying they hadnāt heard of that person or had no opinion about them.
Ā Favorable
Ā Heard Of, No Opinion
Ā Never Heard Of
Ā Unfavorable
Bernie SandersĀ U.S. Senator
76%6%1%17%
Joe BidenĀ Former Vice President
74%7%1%19%
Elizabeth WarrenĀ U.S. Senator
68%11%6%15%
Kamala HarrisĀ U.S. Senator
55%15%11%19%
Beto O’RourkeĀ Former U.S. Representative
45%20%17%18%
Cory BookerĀ U.S. Senator
47%19%18%16%
Julian CastroĀ Former Secretary, HUD
34%27%19%19%
Pete ButtigiegĀ Mayor
48%18%21%13%
Andrew YangĀ Business Person
40%23%23%14%
Amy KlobucharĀ U.S. Senator
34%23%27%16%
John DelaneyĀ Former U.S. Representative
18%37%31%14%
Tim RyanĀ U.S. Representative
21%32%31%16%
Tulsi GabbardĀ U.S. Representative
21%23%33%23%
Michael BennetĀ U.S. Senator
20%33%35%12%
Tom SteyerĀ Business Person
26%24%36%14%
Marianne WilliamsonĀ Activist & Author
17%24%37%22%
Steve BullockĀ Governor
18%32%39%12%
Methodology
About Morning Consult Political Intelligence
On a daily basis, Morning Consult surveys over 5,000 registered voters across the United States. Along with 2020 presidential election data,Ā Political Intelligence tracks the approval ratings for allĀ governors,Ā senators, House members,Ā the president, and moreĀ at the national, state and congressional district level.
Our Democratic primary results are reported using 15,431 interviews with registered voters who indicated they may vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in their state. For those who say donāt know or no opinion, they are asked to pick a candidate they are leaning toward. Results are reported among first choice and those who lean toward a candidate. The interviews were collected October 21-27, 2019, and have a margin of error of +/- 1%. The āEarly Primary State Votersā demographic consists of 611 voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.
In the case of a tie, candidates are ordered alphabetically by last name.
Vice President Joe Biden at a campaign rally in Philadelphia on May 18, 2019.Ā Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Inevitably, he arrives late,Ā by SUV or van. The former vice-president is thin and, yes, heās old. He dresses neatly and always in blue. Staff envelop him. Thereās the body man, the advance man, the videographer, the photographer, the digital director, the traveling chief of staff, the traveling press secretary, the local press secretary, the adviser, the other adviser, the adviserās adviser, the surrogate, the other surrogate, and the bodyguard.
The looming presence of the last guy, Jim, is especially important for optics. Jim is tall and official-looking. He greets the world chest-first, his hands resting in a dignified clasp, his expression even, his mouth unmoving. Most people assume that heās a Secret Service agent. Which he was.
But ex-VPs donāt get security for life the way ex-presidents do. Most people donāt know that, not even the politically savvy types who attend these sorts of things. And thatās all for the best, because Jim ā or whatever local guy theyāve got filling in for him in Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada or wherever else ā is a necessary component of the vibe theyāre trying to generate here, the Big Presidential Energy, if you will, that powers this production.
And it is a production. This is true even when the event is small, which it often is, because the stakes never are ā Joe Biden speaking off the cuff is something the entire campaign seems focused on preventing at all costs. Inside the community center or union hall or college auditorium, the stage is crafted just so. The red and blue letters ā each roughly the size of a 9-year-old ā spell IOWA 4 BIDEN. The American flag is stretched taut and stapled to the plywood. The lawn sign is stapled to the lectern. The delicate panes of teleprompter glass angle to meet his hopeful gaze, so that he may absorb the programmed speech as he peers out at his audience, which usually skews quite old and white, unless heās in South Carolina.
This first part ā the reading of the speech ā he almost always gets right. Even when he makes changes, rearranging the order of the words, skipping over a few, adding others, how could he not get it right? Heās been delivering some version of it for more than 40 years and living it for longer. He could deliver it in his sleep, if he ever sleeps.Ā Itās like my father always said: Joey, a job is about more than just a paycheck. Itās about your dignity. Itās about being able to look your child in the eye and say, āItās gonna be okay ā¦āĀ There is an undercurrent of shame that pulses throughout, this idea that the unequalness of our society is embarrassing for those who have access to less, rather than embarrassing for those who have more than anyone could need.
Folks ā¦ Not a joke!Ā Heās always saying something rather solemn, about cancer or immigration, and then adding, āNot a joke!ā as if anyone thought it might be.Ā Iām being serious here ā¦ Come on ā¦ The bottom line is ā¦ Iām not kidding around ā¦ The fact of the matter is ā¦ Barack and me ā¦ Folks ā¦ Folks ā¦ Folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ FOLKS ā¦ folks ā¦ FoLkS ā¦ fOlKs ā¦ F. O. L. K. S. ā¦
And this next part ā the greeting of the voters ā he gets right, too. In this context, he possesses an almost mystical quality that, for whatever reason, does not come across when filtered through the kaleidoscope of newsprint or television. Itās the way he focuses his eyes, which are as blue as the seas, except for (yikes) that time the left eye filled with blood on CNN a few weeks back.
He is swarmed. Women reach out to him, linking their arms in his. He bows his head and lifts their hands to his mouth for a kiss and, later, when you ask them if that makes them uncomfortable, they look at you like you have three heads. This is the best day of their lives. Are you insane? There are men, too, who embrace him, wrapping their hands around his neck. He calls every male-presenting human he encounters āman.ā I watched him call a baby āman.ā As in,Ā Hey! HowĀareya, man?!Ā He is as skilled a selfie-taker as any influencer, and in the span of 30 or 40 minutes, he snaps hundreds, leaning his body against the rope that separates him from the crowd, straining it one, two, three feet forward. He really does connect with every living being this way, talking about their jobs or their health care as he listens, sometimes crying with them, whispering in their ears, taking their phone numbers and promising to call them. He does, in fact, do that. Everybody is Joe Bidenās long-lost friend. Every baby is Joe Bidenās long-lost child. A little girl in Iowa City called him her uncle Joe. On the Fourth of July in the town of Independence, he took off, running through the parade like a dingo with somebodyās newborn. As hard as it might be to believe that anything in this realm could not be bullshit, itās simply true that this isnāt.
His own loss is staggering in its scale and cruelty: Neilia, his wife, and Naomi, his infant daughter, killed in a car crash. Beau, his oldest son, who survived that crash with his brother, Hunter, killed decades later by brain cancer. And itās as though in that loss heās gained access to an otherwise imperceptible wavelength on which he communicates in this way, with the eyes and the hands.
āI donāt know how to describe it, but sometimes some people would walk up with a lot of emotion in their face, and without even hearing their story, he could connect with them,ā John Flynn, who served as Bidenās senior adviser in the White House, said. āHe would know it was either one thing or another, and he would just know how to approach them and to get them to gently open up if they wanted to. And if they didnāt want to, he just said, āHey, Iām with you, and Iām there for you. I feel your pain.āāā
Chris Coons was an intern for Biden in the Senate and is now a United States senator from Delaware himself. He told me about Loretta Wootten, a former colleague who in January went into a coma after a car crash that killed her husband. āI went to visit Loretta when she regained consciousness, and she looks at me, and she says, āDoes Joe know Iām here?ā Thatās her first sentence. I said, āI donāt know. I mean, heās running for president.ā And, she says, āI just would love to hear from him.ā The next time I see him, I say, āDo you remember Loretta Wootten?ā and he smiles and he says, āOf course.ā I said, āWell, Lorettaās husband was just killed in a car accident, and sheās in recovery.ā And he gets this look, and he turned to someone and said, āGet me a piece of paper.ā And he writes out this page-long, heartfelt message to her, hands it to me, and says, āPlease get this to her.ā When I delivered that to her, she wept with joy.ā
I have witnessed this kind of connection at nearly all of the countless events Iāve attended in a half-dozen states in the six months since Biden announced his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. If he ever does sleep, surely Joe Biden dreams as he proselytizes, of an unbroken America, its ideals and reputation restored, where everybody is folks and folks have everything they need and maybe some of what they want, where the field is just even enough that nobody is ashamed of their own place on it, and where the president isnāt an idiot but where you can easily deal with the idiots by kicking the shit out of them out back in a parking lot or something. Crucially, in this dream, Joe Biden is the president.
A campaign event in New Hampshire in October.Ā Photo: M. Scott Brauer
The pitch goes like this: Joe Biden ought to be the nominee because heās electable, a meaningless concept if recent history is any guide, and presidential, that wonderful word ā the thing Donald Trump could never be even though he literally is president ā despite the fact that Biden, who appears by almost any measure to be a good man, a man whose lone sin in life is ego (and does that even count anymore?), has spent a half-century grasping for this position and watching it slip through his fingers.
To anyone paying attention ā the army of political professionals more wired to observe shortcomings than are those likely to actually vote for him or for anyone else ā it looks, unmistakably, like itās happening again. His vulnerabilities are close to the surface. Thereās the basic fact of his oldness and the concerns, explicit or implicit, about his ability to stay agile and alive for four more years. This was true of Biden, who is 76, even more than it was true of Bernie Sanders, who is the oldest candidate at 78, up until Sanders had a heart attack while campaigning in Nevada earlier this month. (Itās not true at all of Elizabeth Warren, who is 70 but seems a decade younger. And itās not exactly true of Trump, who is 73 and really just seems crazy, not old.)
But itās not just his age itself. Itās his tendency to misspeak, his inartful debating style, and ā most of all ā his status as a creature from another time in the Democratic Party, when the politics of race and crime and gender were unrecognizably different. Itās not just that the Joe Biden of yesteryear sometimes peeks out from behind the No. 1 Obama Stan costume. Itās that the Joe Biden of today is expected to hold his former self accountable to the new standards set by a culture thatās prepared to reject him. And though heās the party Establishmentās obvious exemplar, he canāt seem to raise any money ā spending more in the last quarter than he brought in and moving into the homestretch with less than $9 million in the bank (roughly a third of what Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders has on hand). For political reporters, marveling every day at just how well this isnāt going, watching Biden can feel like being at the rodeo. Youāre there because on some level you know you might see someone get killed.
Yet Biden is still the front-runner. Volatile and potentially worthless as they may be, itās what the polls say. Biden leads the field on average by a handful of percentage points, though his lead has trended steadily downward, from a high of 33 in May to 20 in June to 11, and then to 9.9, and 6.6, and 5.4, according toĀ RealClearPolitics. In the whole campaign, there has only been one day ā October 8 ā when he slipped to second place, an average of 0.2 points behind Warren. Heās also the front-runner in South Carolina, Nevada, California, Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. āThere is this sense of hanging on. And perhaps he can. But thatās generally not the way the physics of these things work,ā former Obama adviser David Axelrod told me. āGenerally, youāre either moving up or moving down. Warren is clearly moving up. Thereās no sign that he is.ā
Biden is aware that itās not going well. But itās not apparent that he knows how to fix it. Recently, according to his staff, his anxieties have manifested more visibly. If he begins to question something small, he spirals, eventually questioning everything. Should he be saying this in his speech? Wait, should he be giving this speech at all? Should he even be focusing on this group? Is this even the right position? He freaks out over minor stuff on the trail that staffers donāt believe he should be concerning himself with and yet is unable to make strategic adjustments. But the staff concern themselves with unimportant matters, too, running what they think is a general-election campaign when they need to be running a primary. Inside the campaign, the Biden brain trust seems to exist more to comfort the candidate than to compel him, and strategy meetings inevitably devolve into meandering, ruminative roundtables that feel purposeless except to fill time in the day. Nobody will tell the candidate in plain terms what they think he needs to change. Not that Biden really listens anyway.
Some on the campaign still believe he can win, in part because they believe he should win. But even to them, the path to a collapse seems clear: Biden loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, where his leads have been steadily declining for months and where, recently, Elizabeth Warren has overtaken him, and then, as a result, loses his sheer aura of electability, too. But inside the campaign, they reportedly see another path, though it might not seem, at first, an optimistic one: Okay, so he loses Iowa and then New Hampshire, but so what? Because he is who he is and represents what he represents ā the embodiment of both the white-working-class model of the electorate and the glow of the Obama years ā he can weather the losses and march to victory through Super Tuesday and beyond. āTheir theory is a long, twilight struggle where they accumulate delegates everywhere as minority voters start playing a larger role,ā Axelrod said. āBut in reality, itās tough to be a winner when you keep losing or at least appear to be.ā
Biden wouldĀ obviously like you to think about his age as experience, but another way of thinking about experience is as a record. Heās got a long one. When he was elected to the Senate, Pete Buttigieg was still a decade away from birth. Thereās a lot of material, then, for Bidenās critics to work with. All sorts of stuff that doesnāt age well, or doesnāt quite compute, in this season of absolutism:Ā Anita HillĀ and allegations thatĀ he violated the personal spaceĀ of several women, controversy over his crusade against busing as a desegregation measure and his eagerness to work with segregationist lawmakers. Last week, after Biden attacked Trump for calling his impeachment a ālynching,ā video emerged of Biden calling Bill Clintonās impeachment the same thing. If it was relevant to American political life at any point since Richard Nixon was president, Biden probably said something about it, but itās new to many younger voters and activists and talking heads now.
Many of them treat Bidenās talking as yet another symptom of his age, but Biden has always been like this. āHis major defect is that he goes on and on and on,ā Orrin Hatch told the WashingtonĀ PostĀ in 1986, when Biden was 43. To say he overcame his childhood stutter would be a bad joke, like one of those I BEAT ANOREXIA T-shirts they sell on the Jersey boardwalk in size XXXL.
In Des Moines, in August, he told a crowd, āPoor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.ā Realizing what heād done, he tried to correct himself. āWealthy kids,ā he said, āblack kids, Asian kids. No, I really mean it, but think how we think about it.ā Two weeks later, in Keene, New Hampshire, he said, āI love this place. Look, whatās not to like about Vermont in terms of the beauty of it? And what a neat town. This is sort of a scenic, beautiful town.ā (When he returned to New Hampshire the following month, a protester held a sign that read WELCOME TO VERMONT, JOE.) And so on.
Biden is cocooned by family, longtime advisers, and former White House staff. His wife Jill, Val, Mike Donilon, Ted Kaufman, Bruce Reed, Annie Tomasini, Tony Blinken, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain. But beyond that small circle, veterans are harder to find on his campaign. Biden is chronically slow to make decisions, and his late entry into the race, which came months after many of his competitors, was an additional challenge to staffing the campaign. Many working at Biden headquarters in Philadelphia have no experience on a presidential campaign, and some have never worked on any campaign at all; even those closest to the candidate address him, deferentially, as āsir.ā
āSome of these folks who have never worked on a presidential before are like, āOkay, Iām working for the former vice-president!ā They donāt really feel like itās slipping,ā one senior campaign adviser told me. āThereās such reverence for getting to work for the vice-president that I think, for some of those folks, thereās a mentality ofĀ How could we possibly lose? Heās who he is.Ā I donāt think they see that thatās not all itās gonna take.ā (Yes, even Bidenās staff say āfolksā the way others say ālikeā or āum.ā)
For many of these staffers, the campaign feels like it should be a coronation. Joe Biden 2020 isnāt a labor of love or ideology. Itās about the proper order of things. Itās about whoās entitled to what. Itās the vehicle by which the Democratic Party Establishment arrives once more to power, the displaced Obama and Clinton professionals reinstalled at the levers. If the Republic is spared in the process ā which everybody genuinely wants, sure! ā thatās a plus. And itās great branding. When it comes to the enthusiasm voters wear on their sleeves for Warren or Sanders, the Biden campaign strikes a cool, dismissive pose, as if it could be believed that a candidate for president werenāt preoccupied with such metrics.
The activist wing of the party is a lost cause to Biden just as heās a lost cause to them. When they show up at his speeches to confront him or protest in support of the Green New Deal, something Iāve witnessed twice in New Hampshire, he attempts to formulate what he surely believes is a respectful response, and yet they donāt think itās enough, because nothing that he says could be enough because of who he is. Can you blame anyone under the age of 30 for their cynicism, for their hostility?
āInternally, there was always this idea that there would be some point when he wasnāt No. 1,ā one senior campaign adviser swears. āTo some extent, people were prepped for that. There isnāt a culture inside the campaign right now like,Ā This is a done deal and weāve lost.Ā The culture is,Ā This is getting real.Ā People are still reacting to that. The question is: Does this now change our strategy and our culture? Thatās where we are right now, figuring out what this new stature means.ā
Where they are, if youāre keeping track, is slumped. And itās a strange dynamic ā the most qualified candidate in the race, surrounded by entitled staff who donāt understand that they have to fight for the nomination, or even the presidency, but without a real case to make beyond a Democratic succession that would amount to an Obama restoration. āHe has no center,ā as one person close to the Biden family put it. āHeās literally only a politician. Thatās who he is. Thatās all he is. Biden is fundamentally a toadie. Heās just political. He needs to kiss ass? Heāll kiss ass.ā
āThey have him in the candidate-protection program,ā Axelrod says. āI donāt know if you can do that. I donāt know if you can get through a whole campaign that way. Either he can hack it or he canāt hack it. If youāre worried the candidate can hurt himself talking to a reporter, thatās a bad sign.ā (Biden declined to be interviewed for this story.)
For his part, Biden is consumed with his endorsements, another sign of his perhaps outdated political instincts; getting insiders to declare their support meant something when powerful political machines controlled the primary process, but it has much less relevance to presidential politics today. And the only endorsement that could matter hasnāt materialized. President Barack Obama has remained silent on the 2020 primary even as he saw it fit to involve himself in Canadian affairs, endorsing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. A senior White House official, reflecting on Bidenās weakness, told me Biden should have never even entered the race without knowing heād have the former presidentās support.
Of course, that was always less of a sure thing than it might have seemed. In 2016, Obama went all-in for Hillary, even as his vice-president contemplated a run. In the early stages of this race, he didnāt just avoid aligning himself with Biden but gestured toward other candidates, including unlikely contender Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, possibly to discourage his former veep from running.
And then thereās Hunter Biden himself, who was going to become an issue one way or another. The 49-year-old son of privilege and tragedy, he has had struggles with addiction and run-ins with the law that have been well-documented. The campaign did its best to control the subject, cooperating with aĀ tell-all interviewĀ over the summer in which Hunter candidly discussed his drug use and his relationship with his brotherās widow. This is sometimes how flacks think theyāll get ahead of a story: You neuter the shock value by delivering the shock yourself. But when your son is a central character in anĀ impeachment sagaĀ likely to preoccupy all of Washington and political news for six months, itās a hard thing to get ahead of, especially when you donāt really seem to want to engage.
āItās sort of bewildering,ā Axelrod says. āI guess I understand it from a familial, psychological sense. It would just be so much better if he stated the obvious: Even Hunter has said he exercised poor judgment. He wonāt even say what his kid said. Itās an obvious question as to why the rules that heās going to apply in the future didnāt apply in the past. All this was foreseeable ā¦ You canāt say, āHe did nothing wrong,ā and, āHeāll never do it again.ā Those things donāt go together. Biden can be stubborn. I think his stubbornness is showing here.ā All of that said, Axelrod added, āwhat Trump is doing is loathsome and outrageous because thereās no evidence that Biden did anything wrong or that Hunter did anything wrong.ā
In a certain sense, impeachment creates for Biden what he wanted all along: a direct competition with Trump. Looked at it one way, itās a story about how the president of the United States was so worried about his formidable opponent that he risked his entire presidency, and even broke the law, to try to stop him. But in other ways, itās exactly what Biden hoped to avoid: a focus on his most troubled child, the last remaining member of his first family, and the privilege his political and celebrity status affords. Even if he didnāt do anything āwrong,ā Trump is right that thereās a swamp, though he doesnāt realize heās its ugliest creature, and impeachment is a daily reminder that Biden swims there, too. Who could withstand an entire year of character assassination by the president, who is aided by a political media that projects his every statement to the world?
Photo: Mark Peterson/Redux/Mark Peterson/Redux
At the Iowa State FairĀ in August, as candidates took to the stage to deliver their stump speeches and answer questions from the Des MoinesĀ Register,Ā I stood off to the side with a few members of the press. We craned our necks downward to squint at a zoomed-in photo of the side of Joe Bidenās head. There, just behind the ear, is where you can supposedly observe the scar from a face-lift, one of many cosmetic procedures Biden is rumored to have had.
The dramatic change to Bidenās appearance is a matter of preoccupation for Biden-watchers. In the timeline of images from throughout his career, you can observe as he grows older and then younger and then older but somehow more elegant and alert. His hair is white now but thicker than it was in the 1980s. Heās thinner, but his cheeks are fuller than they were in 2008. To be honest with you, he looks good. Heās almost 77!
This is also a minor obsession of the White House, as you can probably imagine. Privately, Trump has marveled at the āworkā Biden has had done and the fact that, in his opinion, he doesnāt look any better for it. Those who know him say the president is against plastic surgery (by which I assume they donāt mean breast implants) and, especially, bad plastic surgery, and he considers it an all-too-common tragedy when someone has their face inexpertly altered.
A senior White House official who regularly discusses the campaign with Trump was describing how his view of Biden has evolved since the winter. It was then, before Biden declared, that the campaign began conducting polling and sharing the results with Trump himself. The internal numbers were as bad as the external. Biden destroyed Trump. The presidentās anxieties only grew as Biden became a more popular topic on cable news. āIt was easy to get caught up,ā this official said. āThe president saw that itās easier to picture Joe Biden up on the debate stage than some of the others.ā
Over time, as Biden formally waded into the race, and the president saw the reality of the candidate as opposed to the idea of Vice-President Joe Biden, he grew less concerned, according to the senior White House official. Biden was no longer āthe guy he was worried about.ā And one of the reasons was, in Trumpian fashion, āhis look.ā Though the official adds a few more items to the list as well: āHis cadence. His inability to speak. His small crowds.ā
Trump has also commented on Bidenās wardrobe choices, wondering why heād wear Ralph Lauren polo shirts on the campaign trail that show off his graying chest hair and skinny arms. (Trump himself wears polo shirts almost exclusively while golfing).
Inside the White House and the reelection campaign, the true believers know how to decode Trumpās bitchy nicknames for his competitors. As iconic as āCrooked Hillaryā and āLyinā Tedā may be, his crowning achievement remains āLow Energy,ā his characterization of Jeb Bush. āSleepy Joeā is considered Trumpās attempt at a 2020 remake of āLow Energy,ā and itās all about emphasizing Bidenās age.
In September, somebody had the bright idea to stage an afternoon event under the open sky at the Indian Creek Nature Center in sunny Cedar Rapids. It was the day after news of the whistle-blower broke, but Biden stuck to the eventās topic, climate change, addressing all the usual themes. Then faces began turning upward to the birds overhead. Somebody from ShowtimeāsĀ The CircusĀ told me the birds were bald eagles, but at the time I thought they looked like hawks, which, I guess, is a sort of glass-half-empty or -half-full dilemma. Eventually, word of the alleged bald eagles made its way to Biden, and with a look of optimism, he turned his face to the sky. He grew emotional. He said that at the Lake House, Beau used to sit by the water and watch the bald eagles fly overhead. The night Beau died, in 2015, Biden said he watched an eagle take off from the lake, circle in the sky, and then fly away. He hadnāt seen another bald eagle since that night, he said, until now. Looking at the bird, he said, āMaybe thatās my Beau.ā
Biden wrote a book about his grief, and about his son, calledĀ Promise Me, Dad.Ā Therein, he tells a similar story, but with a different bird. That night, he wrote, āJill spotted a white egret at the far edge of the water.ā She told her husband that, as he lay dying, she whispered to Beau to go to the dock, āhis happy place,ā with his brother. āWe watched the egret for twenty minutes, until it finally took flight,ā Biden wrote. āThe two of us sat in silence as the egret circled overhead repeatedly, slowly gaining altitude, until it finally headed away to the south, beneath the clouds, and gradually disappeared from sight. āItās a sign from God,ā Jill said. āBeau being at the lake one last time, and heading for heaven.āāā
Anne KearnsĀ is an 84-year-old grandmother of 16 and retired professor. For 58 years, she has lived in the modest blue house with black shutters on North Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where Joe Biden lived during the first decade of his life.
āHe calls this āthe Homestead,āāā she told me last Sunday. We were sitting in the living room, surrounded by framed photos of her large family and one photo of Biden, propped up on the TV stand. For most of his career, Biden was among the least-wealthy members of Congress, an attractive bullet point that he continues to note even after amassing a fortune in his postāWhite House life. He often claims that ātheyā call him āMiddle-Class Joe.ā (As far as I can tell, he is the only person who calls himself this.) But heās always had a weakness for grand old houses, even before he could really afford them, and an odd habit of referring to his properties by nicknames: North Star (for the Delaware village in which it was located), the Station (his once-bustling home in Wilmington), and the Lake House (self-explanatory). What does Anne call the Homestead in which she lives? āWell, nothing,ā she said, laughing.
You could tell the story of Bidenās astonishingly long political career through Anne and through this house.
She first learned there was an interesting man who had once lived here in 1972, when she saw Bidenās ads on TV. At the time, he was running for the U.S. Senate against Cale Boggs, a powerful Republican who had won seven consecutive elections in Delaware, climbing from Congress to the governorās mansion and ultimately to the Senate. Boggs was 63, and Biden, who at 29 wouldnāt even be eligible to serve in the office he was seeking until two weeks after Election Day, used his seniority against him. āWe need some new thinking,ā read one of Bidenās advertisements. āHe understands whatās happening today,ā read another. āMy husband said to me ā he watched him all the time on TV ā and heād say, āAh, heās going to be something someday,āāā Anne said.
In 1988, when Biden was running for president the first time, reporters and authors began knocking on Anneās door. A boy who lived down the street brought her a signed photo Biden had addressed to her, thanking her for her cooperation in this strange endeavor.
By her count, Biden himself has visited the Homestead six times over the years, once privately with his late mother, who refused to get out of the car despite Anne assuring her that the visit was not a disturbance, and other trips with the media and even Hillary Clinton.
āHe came another time with Terry Moran fromĀ Nightline,Ā and they walked across the street. At that time, I had a leg done, and so my niece was sitting where you areā ā she gestured to my chair ā āand she said, āI think thatās Joe Biden coming.ā I thought,Ā No, he was here two weeks ago.Ā My nephew stood up, and he said, āAnne, it is Joe Biden.ā They had left a message on my phone and I didnāt hear it.ā
In 2008, the Obama-Biden campaign staged a formal event here with 400 people plus Secret Service sweeping through and rows of seating set up next door for reporters. Biden went upstairs to his old bedroom and signed the wall. Anne keeps photos from that day in an album underneath the television, and in them, Biden can be seen writing in black Sharpie, I AM HOME ā JOE BIDEN 9 * 1 * 08. By then, Biden had served in the Senate for 25 years and run for president twice ā once disastrously, ending in a plagiarism scandal, and once unremarkably, ending in a vice-presidential campaign.
The whole neighborhood, Anne said, took pride in him, supported him. Even the old lady across the street, whose sons told her she wasnāt allowed to speak to reporters or let them into the house anymore, still loves Joe Biden.
Age isnāt just a weakness for Biden. There are a lot of old people in America, and many of them really like the former vice-president. They donāt see a doddering, out-of-touch, exhausted man, as the 20- and 30- and 40-somethings who cover the campaign and dominate social media do. They look at him and see, well, a statesman from the popular recent administration who has moved to the left as the party has, if not quite as much as his younger rivals. These are the people that really vote in elections, and, to them, that all seems pretty good. āI worry when I read that he is even with somebody. I just read a piece this morning that heās even with the Warren lady,ā Anne said.
āI really think heād be wonderful in getting us back with the people that are overseas. I think heās wonderful dealing with people. I would definitely support him. I think he knows whatās going on with all those people ā¦ Heās a wonderful man. He really is wonderful, and he cares about people.ā
A few days after I left the Homestead, Biden gave a speech at the Scranton Cultural Center. At the last minute, he decided to make an unplanned stop on North Washington Avenue. As photographers snapped away from the sidewalk, Anne answered the door. Biden wrapped her in a hug.
WASHINGTON (CNN) Former Vice President Joe Biden’sĀ leadĀ in the race for theĀ Democratic nomination for presidentĀ has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April, according to a new CNN poll conducted byĀ SSRS.
Biden has the support of 34% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters, his best showing in CNN polling since just after his campaign’s formal launch on April 25.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont are about even for second, with 19% and 16%, respectively. Behind them, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris of California each have 6% support, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke each at 3%.
Biden’s rise comes largely from a consolidation of support among his core backers, and doesn’t appear to harm any individual opponent. Warren and Sanders hold about even with their standing in the last CNN poll in September, and no other candidate has seen a shift of more than 2 points in that time.
But Biden has seen big spikes in support among moderate and conservative Democrats (43% support him now, up from 29% in the September poll), racial and ethnic minorities (from 28% among all nonwhites in September to 42% now) and older voters (up 13 points since September among those 45 and older) that outpace those among younger potential Democratic voters (up 5 points among those younger than 45).
The gains come as Biden’s time as vice president is put under the spotlight by President Donald Trump and his allies. Trump is facingĀ an impeachment inquiryĀ by the House of Representatives over allegations that he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, as well as the 2016 US election in return for releasing hundreds of millions in congressionally mandated defense funding meant for Ukraine. Hunter Biden was on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company while Biden was vice president. There is no evidence that either Biden did anything wrong in Ukraine.
The poll suggests that although Biden’sĀ October debate performanceĀ did not blow away the audience (15% who watched or followed news about it said he had done the best job in the debate, well behind Warren’s 28% — but better than most on the stage), the arguments he made on health care, foreign policy and the economy may have boosted his standing with the potential Democratic electorate.
Asked which candidate would best handle a range of top issues, Biden leads the way on four of the six issues tested in the poll. He holds a massive edge over the field on foreign policy (56% say he would handle it best, well ahead of Sanders at 13% and Warren at 11%), and tops the next closest candidate by nearly 20 points on the economy (38% Biden, 19% Sanders, 16% Warren). Biden also outpaces the rest of the field as most trusted on immigration (29% Biden, 16% each Warren and Sanders) and gun policy (27% vs. 13% Sanders and 11% Warren, with O’Rourke close at 9%).
Biden doesn’t hold a significant edge on the critical issue of health care (31% Biden, 28% Sanders, 17% Warren) but he’s surged 13 points on the issue since June, when he lagged behind Sanders. Neither Sanders’ nor Warren’s numbers on the issue have moved significantly in that time.
And Biden now runs even with Sanders at 26% as best able to handle the climate crisis. Warren is at 18% on that issue. The results mark increases for Biden and Sanders, who were each at 19% on handling the climate in June.
The former vice president’s advantages on the issues come as he emphasizes an approach that appears to align with the preferences of most potential Democratic voters. A 53% majority say they want the nominee to advocate policies that have a good chance of becoming law, even if the changes aren’t as big, vs. 42% who prefer advocating big changes even if they have less of a chance of becoming law.
Among those voters who prefer an approach that prioritizes policies with a better chance of becoming law, 38% support Biden for the Democratic nomination, 17% Warren and just 8% Sanders. On the other side, it’s nearly a three-way split, with 27% behind Biden, 24% Sanders and 21% Warren.
About 1 in 5 potential Democratic voters say they watched last week’s debate among 12 Democratic candidates, and those who watched it came away with a different assessment than those who mainly followed news about the debate. Overall, among everyone who either watched or followed news coverage on the debate, 28% say Warren had the best night, 15% Biden, 13% Sanders, 11% Buttigieg, 4% Klobuchar and 2% Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, with the rest at 1% or less. Among those who say they watched it, though, Warren remains on top at 29%, but 21% say Buttigieg had the best night, then 13% Biden, 11% Sanders, 10% Klobuchar and 4% Booker, with everyone else at 1% or less
And those who watched the debate seem to have more favorable views of the lesser-known candidates who were seen as having good nights than do those who followed coverage. Among debate watchers, 74% have a favorable view of Buttigieg, vs. 54% among those who followed news instead. Booker’s favorability rating is 80% among those who watched, vs. 55% among those who followed coverage, and Klobuchar’s favorability stands at 56% among watchers vs. 36% among those who followed news.
Warren tops the list of candidates who potential Democratic voters say they want to hear more about: 31% name her, 24% Buttigieg, 23% Harris, 18% Booker, 17% Sanders, 16% Biden, 13% Klobuchar, 11% O’Rourke and 10% businessman Andrew Yang.
Majorities of potential Democratic voters say they would at least be satisfied with any of the top three becoming the party’s nominee, with about 4 in 10 saying they’d be enthusiastic about Biden (43%), Warren (41%) or Sanders (39%). Fewer would feel as excited should Buttigieg become the party’s nominee (27% enthusiastic).
Registered voters generally give Biden, Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg large advantages over President Donald Trump in hypothetical general election matchups. Biden leads the President by 10 points, 53% to 43%, with Sanders up 9 (52% to 43%) and Warren up 8 (52% to 44%). Buttigieg holds a 6-point edge, 50% to 44%.
The CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from October 17 through 20 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults reached on landlines or cellphones by a live interviewer, including 424 registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. For results among potential Democratic voters, it is plus or minus 5.8 points.
OVERVIEW The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted from October 17-20, 2019 among a sample of 1,003 respondents. The landline total respondents were 352 and there were 651 cell phone respondents. The margin of sampling error for total respondents is +/- 3.7 at the 95% confidence level. The design effect is 1.47.More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting http://www.ssrs.com. Question text noted in parentheses was rotated or randomized. Unless otherwise noted, results
beginning with the March 31-April 2, 2006 survey and ending with the April 22-25, 2017 survey are from surveys
conducted by ORC International. Results before March 31, 2006 are from surveys conducted by Gallup.
NOTE ABOUT CROSSTABS
Interviews were conducted among a representative sample of the adult population, age 18 or older, of the United
States. Members of demographic groups not shown in the published crosstabs are represented in the results for
each question in the poll. Crosstabs on the pages that follow only include results for subgroups with a minimum
n=125 unweighted cases. Results for subgroups with fewer than n=125 unweighted cases are not displayed and
instead are denoted with “SN” because samples of that size carry larger margins of sampling error and can be too
small to be projectable with confidence to their true values in the population.
1,885 of 3,769[a]Ā pledged delegate votes needed to win the presidential nomination at theĀ convention‘s first ballot.[1]
(2,268 of all 4,535[b]Ā delegate votes needed to win any subsequent ballots at aĀ contested convention)[1]
Independently of the result of primaries and caucuses, the Democratic Party willāfrom its group of party leaders and elected officialsāalso appoint 765[b]Ā unpledged delegates (superdelegates) to participate in its national convention. In contrast to all previous election cycles, superdelegates will no longer have the right to cast decisive votes at the convention’s first ballot for the presidential nomination (limiting their voting rights to either non-decisive votes on the first ballot or decisive votes for subsequent ballots on aĀ contested convention).[2][3][4]
The field of major Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 election peaked at more than two dozen. As of October 24, 2019, 18 major candidates are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. The October 15, 2019 Democratic presidential debate inĀ Westerville, OhioĀ featured 12 candidates, setting a record for the highest number of candidates in one presidential debate.
AfterĀ Hillary Clinton‘s loss in theĀ previousĀ election, many felt the Democratic Party lacked a clear leader.[5]Ā There remained divisions in the party following theĀ 2016 primariesĀ which pitted Clinton againstĀ Bernie Sanders.[6][7]Ā Between the 2016 election and theĀ 2018 midterm elections, Senate Democrats have generally shifted to theĀ political leftĀ in relation to college tuition, healthcare, and immigration.[8][9]Ā TheĀ 2018 electionsĀ saw the Democratic Party regain the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years, picking up seats in both urban and suburban districts.[10][11]
The 2020 field of Democratic presidential candidates peaked at more than two dozen candidates. According toĀ Politifact, this field is believed to be the largest field of presidential candidates for any American political party since 1972;[c]Ā it exceeds the field of 17 major candidates that sought theĀ Republican presidential nomination in 2016.[14]Ā In May 2019, CBS News referred to the field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates as “the largest and most diverse Democratic primary field in modern history”.[15]Ā As of October 24, 2019, 18 major candidates are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.[16]Ā The October 15, 2019 Democratic presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio featured 12 candidates, setting a record for the highest number of candidates in one presidential debate.[17][18]
On August 25, 2018, theĀ Democratic National Committee (DNC)Ā members passed reforms to the Democratic Party’s primary process in order to increase participation[19]Ā and ensure transparency.[20]Ā State parties are encouraged to use a government-run primary whenever available and increase the accessibility of their primary throughĀ same-dayĀ orĀ automaticĀ registration and same-day party switching. Caucuses are required to have absentee voting, or to otherwise allow those who cannot participate in person to be included.[19]
The new reforms also regulate how theĀ Democratic National ConventionĀ shall handle the outcome of primaries and caucuses for three potential scenarios:[2][4]
If a single candidate wins at least 2,268 pledged delegates: Superdelegates will be allowed to vote at first ballot, as their influence can not overturn the majority of pledged delegates.
If a single candidate wins 1,886ā2,267 pledged delegates: Superdelegates will be barred from voting at first ballot, which solely will be decided by the will of pledged delegates.
If no candidate wins more than 1,885 pledged delegates: This will result in a contested convention, where superdelegates are barred from voting at the first formal ballot, but regain their right to vote for their preferred presidential nominee for all subsequent ballots needed until the delegates reach a majority.
The reforms mandate thatĀ superdelegatesĀ refrain from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot, unless a candidate via the outcome of primaries and caucuses already has gained enough votes (more than 50% of all delegate votes) among only the elected pledged delegates. The prohibition for superdelegates to vote at the first ballot for the last two mentioned scenarios, does not preclude superdelegates from publicly endorsing a candidate of their choosing before the convention.[4]
In aĀ contested conventionĀ where no majority of minimum 1,886 pledged delegate votes is found for a single candidate in the first ballot, all superdelegates will then regain their right to vote on any subsequent ballot necessary in order for a presidential candidate to be nominated (raising the majority needed for such to 2,267 votes).[2][4]
More than 250 candidates who did not meet the above-referenced criteria to be deemed major candidates also filed with theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ to run for president in the Democratic Party primary.[27]
The following list of current candidates includes major candidates that have filed with theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ to run for president in the 2020 Democratic primary, have officially announced their respective candidacies, and have not withdrawn their candidacies. As of October 24, 2019, the total number of current candidates is 18.
Beside these major candidates, more than 250 other candidates who did not meet the above-referenced criteria to be deemed major candidates also filed with theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ to run for president in the Democratic Party primary.[65]Ā Other notable candidates who have not suspended their respective campaigns include:
The persons listed in this section have, as of October 22, 2019, reportedly considered presidential bids within the past six months and would be major candidates.
In December 2018, theĀ Democratic National CommitteeĀ (DNC) announced the preliminary schedule for 12 official DNC-sanctioned debates, set to begin in June 2019, with six debates in 2019 and the remaining six during the first four months of 2020. Candidates are allowed to participate inĀ forumsĀ featuring multiple other candidates as long as only one candidate appears on stage at a time; if candidates participate in any unsanctioned debate with other presidential candidates, they will lose their invitation to the next DNC-sanctioned debate.[192][193]
If any debates will be scheduled to take place with a location in the first four primary/caucus states (Iowa,Ā New Hampshire,Ā Nevada, andĀ South Carolina), the DNC has decided such debates, at the earliest, will be held in 2020.[192]Ā The DNC also announced that it would not partner withĀ Fox NewsĀ as a media sponsor for any debates.[194][195]Ā Fox News had last held a Democratic debate in 2003.[196]Ā All media sponsors selected to host a debate will as a new rule be required to appoint at least one female moderator for each debate, to ensure there will not be a gender skewed treatment of the candidates and debate topics.[197]
John DelaneyĀ was the first major candidate to announce his campaign, two and a half years before the 2020 Iowa caucus.
In the weeks following the election ofĀ Donald TrumpĀ in theĀ 2016 election, media speculation regarding potential candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries began to circulate. As the Senate began confirmation hearings for members of the cabinet, speculation centered on the prospects of the “hell-no caucusā, six senators who went on to vote against the majority of Trump’s nominees. According toĀ Politico, the members of the “hell-no caucus” wereĀ Cory Booker,Ā Kamala Harris,Ā Kirsten Gillibrand,Ā Bernie Sanders,Ā Jeff Merkley, andĀ Elizabeth Warren.[218][219]Ā Other speculation centered on then-Vice-PresidentĀ Joe BidenĀ making a third presidential bid following failed attempts inĀ 1988Ā andĀ 2008. Biden had previously served as U.S. senator from Delaware (1973ā2009).[220]
EntrepreneurĀ Andrew YangĀ was the second major Democratic candidate to announce his campaign.
In August 2018, Democratic Party officials and television networks began discussions as to the nature and scheduling of the following year’s debates and the nomination process.[223]Ā Changes were made to the role of superdelegates, deciding to only allow them to vote on the first ballot if the nomination is uncontested.[224]Ā TheĀ Democratic National CommitteeĀ (DNC) announced the preliminary schedule for the 12 official DNC-sanctioned debates, set to begin in June 2019, with six debates in 2019 and the remaining six during the first four months of 2020.
August 8ā11, August 13, and August 17, 2019:Ā The Des Moines RegisterĀ Political Soapbox was held at theĀ Iowa State Fair, Des Moines, Iowa by theĀ Des Moines Register.[297]
August 15: John Hickenlooper dropped out of the race, later announcing a campaign for Colorado’sĀ Class 2Ā United States SenateĀ seat up for election inĀ 2020.[298]
September 7: New Hampshire state convention: 19 candidates were in attendance and addressed the delegates.[302]
September 8: The Asian American Pacific Islanders Progressive Democratic Presidential Forum was held atĀ Orange County, CaliforniaĀ by AAPI Victory Fund and by Asian Americans Rising.[303][304]
September 19ā20: A Climate Forum was held in Washington, D.C. byĀ MSNBC,Ā Georgetown University, and Our Daily Planet.[307]
September 20: Bill de Blasio dropped out of the race.[103]
September 21: The Iowa People’s Presidential Forum was held inĀ Des Moines, IowaĀ by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund and People’s Action.[308]
October
October 1:Ā This was the deadline to qualify for the fourth Democratic debate.[309]
October 13: The New Hampshire People’s Presidential Forum was held at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, New Hampshire sponsored by Rights & Democracy, New Hampshire Youth Movement, and People’s Action.[308]
October 15: The fourth official debate took place inĀ Otterbein UniversityĀ inĀ Westerville,Ā Ohio,[313][314]Ā aired on CNN. The debate featured 12 candidates, setting a record for the highest number of candidates in one presidential debate.[315][316]
October 26: The People’s Presidential Forum was held in East Las Vegas Community Center,Ā Las Vegas, NevadaĀ by the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada Action and People’s Action.[308]
November
November 13: This is the deadline to qualify for the fifth Democratic debate.[319]
Democratic primary and caucus calendar by currently scheduled date
February
March 3 (Super Tuesday)
March 10
March 17
March 24
April 4ā7
April 28
May
June
No scheduled 2020 date
The following primary and caucus dates have been scheduled by state statutes or state party decisions, but are subject to change pending legislation, state party delegate selection plans, or the decisions of state secretaries of state:[324]
The 57 states, districts, territories, or other constituencies with elections of pledged delegates to decide the Democratic presidential nominee, currently plan to hold the first major determining step for these elections via 50 primaries[l]Ā and seven caucuses (Iowa, Nevada, Wyoming, and four territories).[324]Ā The number of states holding caucuses decreased from 14 in theĀ 2016 nomination processĀ to only three in 2020.[330][331]
In addition to Milwaukee, the DNC also considered bids from three other cities:Ā Houston,Ā Texas;[335]Ā Miami Beach, Florida;[336]Ā andĀ Denver,Ā Colorado. Denver, though, was immediately withdrawn from consideration by representatives for the city, who cited scheduling conflicts.[337]
This is an overview of the money being raised and spent by each campaign for the entire period running from January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019, as it was reported to theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ (FEC). Total raised are the sum of all individual contributions (large and small), loans from the candidate, and transfers from other campaign committees. The last column, Cash On Hand (COH), has been calculated by subtracting the “spent” amount from the “raised” amount, thereby showing the remaining cash each campaign had available for its future spending as of September 30, 2019. In total the candidates have raised $476,284,606.
Ā Withdrawn candidate
Candidate
Campaign committee (January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019)
^Ā Jump up to:abĀ The overall number of pledged delegates is subject to change as possible penalty/bonus delegates (awarded for each states scheduled election date and potential regional clustering) are not yet included.[1]
^Ā Jump up to:abĀ The number of extra unpledged delegates (superdelegates), who after the first ballot at aĀ contested conventionĀ participates in any subsequently needed nominating ballots (together with the 3,769 pledged delegates), was expected to be 765 as of August 2019, but the exact number of superdelegates is still subject to change due to possible deaths, resignations, accessions, or potential election as a pledged delegete.[1]
^Ā Prior to the electoral reforms that took effect starting with theĀ 1972 presidential elections, the Democrats used elite-run state conventions to choose convention delegates in two-thirds of the states, and candidates for the presidential nominee could be elected at the national convention of the party without needing to participate in any prior statewide election events.[13]Ā Twenty-nine Democratic candidates announced their presidential candidacies prior to theĀ 1924 Democratic National Convention,[14]Ā and a record of 58 candidates received delegate votes during the 103 nominating ballots at that 17-day-long convention. In the post-reform era, over three-quarters of the states used primary elections to choose delegates, and over 80% of convention delegates were selected in those primaries.[13]Ā For more information, seeĀ McGovernāFraser Commission.
^Ā Jump up to:abcdĀ This individual is not a member of the Democratic Party, but has been the subject of speculation or expressed interest in running under this party.
^Ā Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined
^Ā 270 to Win reports the date each poll was released, not the dates each poll was administered.
^Ā Gabbard with 2.0%; Steyer with 1.0%; Bennet and Castro with 0.6%; Williamson with 0.4%; Delaney with 0.2%; Bullock, Messam and Sestak with 0.0%
^Ā Gabbard with 1.5%; Steyer with 1.0%; Bennet and Castro with 0.7%; Ryan with 0.6%; Williamson with 0.3%; Bullock with 0.0%
^Ā The Economist aggregates polls with a trendline regression of polls rather than a strict average of recent polls.
^Ā Gabbard with 1.2%; Castro with 0.7%; Williamson and Steyer with 0.5%; Bennet with 0.4%; Delaney with 0.3%; Bullock with 0.2%; Messam and Sestak with 0.0%
^Ā Gabbard with 1.6%; Steyer with 0.8%; Castro with 0.7%; Bennet with 0.6%; Williamson with 0.4%; Delaney and Ryan with 0.2%; Bullock with 0.1%; Messam and Sestak with 0.0%
^Ā 5 out of 50 primaries are not state-run but party-run. “North Dakota Firehouse caucuses” is the official name of their event, but it’s held as a party-run primary and not a caucus in 2020. Democrats Abroad likewise conduct their election as a party-run primary, with their pledged delegates allocated at later conventions solely on basis of the proportional result of their party-run primary. The last three states with party-run primaries are Alaska, Kansas and Hawaii.[329][330]
Story 1: FIve Day Cease Fire or Pause Before Turkey Genocide of Kurds in Syrian Buffer Zone? — 200,000 Civilians Fled Zone — Massive Prison Break of Islamic State Possible as Kurds Flee — Long Range Consequences of United States Interventionist Foreign Policy: Million of Refugees and Deaths — Regime Change Roulette — Videos —
Syria, Turkey, Kurds, ISIS & Trump & Putin, and how the Middle East unravelled in murderous chaos
Turkey in northern Syria explained
The US, Daesh and the PKK: Explaining Turkey’s operation in Syria
Turkey backed Syrian forces move into Tal Abyad
Turkish, Kurdish forces accuse each other of violating cease-fire
How the Kurds became a key player in Syria’s war
The PKK explained
The PKK-YPG connection
The Kurds
The Kurds: The Most Famous Unknown People in the World | Stephen Mansfield | TEDxNashville
Turkish and Kurdish forces clash despite ceasefire
Syria: Kurds’ fury as Trump orders US troop withdrawal
War in Syria: Can the Kurdish forces fight back?
Turkey invades Syria: Who are the players and what do they want? | DW News
What’s next for the Kurds? | ITV News
Why the world is worried about Turkey
PBS NewsHour West live show October 18, 2019
Top U.S. & World Headlines ā October 18, 2019
Bashar al-Assad: ‘Turkey will pay a heavy price’ for Syrian involvement
Al-Assad’s troops enter northern towns to confront offensive
Assad forces are moving into towns and villages once held by the Kurds | ITV News
Race to the border: Syrian Kurds call in Assad against Turkey offensive
An Interview with PKK Leader Abdullah Ćcalan
The war against Assad in Syria
Civil war in Syria has already claimed the lives of more than 60.000 people. The prospect that there will soon be an end to the murdering is bad. “Assad listens to no one”, suggests Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov when describing his experiences with the Syrian president. The former UN negotiator Kofi Annan, who attempted to mediate between the fronts for several months, always had the feeling that “Assad will not accept reality”. At the same time, Annan makes the USA and the Syrian opposition jointly responsible for the disaster: “Those calling for Assad to resign as a precondition for talks make negotiations impossible”. In an exclusive interview, Syria’s President, Bashar al Assad, defended attacks by his air force on rebels in Syrian cities, which also massively effect his own people, said: “We have to defend ourselves as the tactics of the enemy force us to”. In the same interview, which was recorded at the end of 2012 for this documentary,
Assad also made “foreign terrorists responsible for the situation in his country”. In his documentary, Grimme award winner Hubert Seipel analyses the dangerous situation in Syria. Apart from his meeting with Assad, he conducted exclusive interviews with Kofi Annan and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Seipel illuminated a conflict in which not only Kalashnikovs and missiles, but also the Internet plays the central role in public opinion. “False information and psychological warfare make up a very large part of the Syrian Civil War. It is significantly worse than in previous wars that I had ever been involved in”, added Kofi Annan, describing the massive disinformation. Whoever has control of the images of war, has the power to influence political decisions. Massacre marketing is a powerful weapon.
Frontline – The Battle for Syria
2012 documentary on the Syrian Civil War by Frontline
The Boy who started the Syrian War | Featured Documentary
The Cost of the Syrian War
Syria’s child refugees: ‘You feel that they have lost their hearts
Syrians Return Home After Humiliating Refugee-Life in Europe | The Quint
The Ingraham Angle 10/18/19 | Fox Breaking News Laura Ingraham October 18, 2019
Rand Paul Discusses Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria | The View
Neoconservatives vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11
Ron Paul: Americans Are Forced to Pay for U.S. Government’s Interventionist Foreign Policy
Ron Paul’s 2003 House speech about the danger of neoconservatism
The PKK was founded in 1978 in the village of Fis (nearĀ Lice) by a group of Kurdish students led byĀ Abdullah Ćcalan[19]Ā and 1979 it made its existence known to the public.[20]Ā The PKK’s ideology was originally a fusion ofĀ revolutionary socialismĀ andĀ Kurdish nationalism, seeking the foundation of an independentĀ Communist stateĀ in the region, which was to be known asĀ Kurdistan. The initial reasons given by the PKK for this were theĀ oppression of Kurds in TurkeyĀ andĀ capitalism.[21][22]Ā By then, the use of Kurdish language, dress,Ā folklore, and names were banned in Kurdish-inhabited areas.[23]Ā The words “Kurds”, “Kurdistan“, or “Kurdish” were officially banned by the Turkish government.[failed verification][24]Ā Following theĀ military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life.[25]Ā Many who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested, imprisoned, tortured or killed.[26]Ā The PKK was then formed, as part of a growing discontent over the suppression of Turkey’s ethnic Kurds, in an effort to establish linguistic, cultural, and political rights for Turkey’s ethnic Kurdish minority.[27]
Since the PKK’s foundation, it has been involved in armed clashes with Turkish security forces. The full-scaleĀ insurgency, however, did not begin until 15 August 1984, when the PKK announced a Kurdish uprising. Since the conflict began, more than 40,000 have died, most of whom were Kurdish civilians through Turkish military actions.[28]
In 1999, PKK leader Ćcalan was captured and imprisoned.[29]Ā In May 2007, former members of the PKK helped form theĀ Kurdistan Communities UnionĀ (KCK), an umbrella organisation of Kurds from Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In 2013, the PKK declared aĀ ceasefireĀ agreement and began slowly withdrawing its fighters to theĀ Kurdistan RegionĀ of northern Iraq as part of theĀ solution processĀ between the Turkish state and the Kurdish minority.
Since July 2015, when the ceasefire broke down,[30]Ā violent actions inside Turkey from the government against the PKK and vice versa kept occurring, supplemented with Turkish military action in 2018 against PKK fighters in Iraq, and both in January 2018 and October 2019 against Kurdish political groups (PYD) and forces (YPGĀ andĀ YPJ) in Syria which according to Turkey and some observers[31]Ā are strongly tied to the PKK (see ‘clashing’ details in:Ā KurdishāTurkish conflict (1978āpresent)#2015āpresent).
PKK supporters at 2003 march opposing theĀ Iraq War, London
In the early 1970s, the organization’s core group was made up largely of students led byĀ Abdullah ĆcalanĀ (“Apo“) inĀ Ankara. By then, the use of Kurdish language, dress,Ā folklore, and names were banned in Kurdish-inhabited areas.[23]Ā In an attempt to deny their existence, the Turkish government categorizedĀ KurdsĀ as “Mountain Turks” until 1991.[23][32][33][34]Ā The words “Kurds”, “Kurdistan“, or “Kurdish” were officially banned by the Turkish government.[24]Ā Following theĀ military coup of 1980, the Kurdish language was officially prohibited in public and private life.[25]Ā Many who spoke, published, or sang in Kurdish were arrested and imprisoned.[26]Ā The PKK was then formed, as part of a growing discontent over the suppression of Turkey’s ethnic Kurds, in an effort to establish linguistic, cultural, and political rights for Turkey’s ethnic Kurdish minority.[27]Ā The group focused to the large oppressed Kurdish population inĀ south-east Turkey. A meeting on 25 November 1978, in a tea house nearĀ DiyarbakırĀ is considered the founding meeting.[35]Ā On 27 November 1978, the group adopted the nameĀ Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Espousing aĀ MarxistĀ ideology, the group took part in violent conflicts with right-wing entities as a part of the political chaos in Turkey at the time. The group tried to assassinate the Kurdish tribal leader Mehmet Celal Bucak in 1979. According to the PKK sources, he was exploiting the peasants, and collaborated with Turkey in oppressing the Kurds. It is believed that this marked a period of intenseĀ urban warfareĀ among other political elements.
Starting in 1984,Ā the PKK transformedĀ into a paramilitary group, using training camps in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and France. At the same time, some of its members started to get training by the members of theĀ Palestine Liberation OrganizationĀ who themselves were trained by Soviet personnel in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in Syrian-controlled camps. According to the U. S. government reports, the PKK received significant support by Syria, which allowed it to maintain headquarters in Damascus, as well as by Iran, Iraq, and Libya. It later began to launch attacks and bombings against Turkish governmental installations, the military, and various institutions of the state. The organization focused on attacks against Turkish military targets in Turkey, although civilian targets were also hit. The group started to gain publicity after committing political killings and massacres.[37][38][39][40]
From the mid-1990s, the organization began to loseĀ the upper hand in its operationsĀ as a consequence of a change of tactics by Turkey and Syria’s steady abandonment of support for the group. The group also had lost its support fromĀ Saddam Hussein.[41]Ā At the same time, the government started to use more violent methods to counter Kurdish militants. From 1996 to 1999, the organization began to use suicide bombers, VBIED and ambush attacks against military and police bases. The role of suicide bombers, especially female ones were encouraged and mythologised by giving them the status of a “goddess of freedom”, and shown as role models for other women after their death. On 30 July 1996, Zeynep Kınacı, a female PKK fighter, carried out the organization’s first suicide attack, killing 8 soldiers and injuring 29 others. The attacks against the civilians, especially the Kurdish citizens who refused to cooperate with them were also reported at the same years. On 20 January 1999, a report published byĀ HRW, stated that the PKK was believed to have been responsible for more than 768 executions. The organization had also reportedly committed 25 massacres, killing more than 300 people. More than hundred victims were children and women.[42][42][43][44][45]
The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Turkey for human rights abuses during the conflict.[49][50]Ā Some judgements are related to executions of Kurdish civilians,[51]Ā torturing,[52]Ā forced displacements,[53]destroyed villages,[54][55][56]Ā arbitrary arrests,[57]Ā murdered and disappeared Kurdish journalists, activists and politicians.[58][59][60]Ā As a result of increasing Kurdish population and activism, the Turkish parliament began a controlled process of dismantling some anti-Kurdish legislation, using the term “normalization” or “rapprochement,” depending on the sides of the issue. It partially relaxed the bans on broadcasting and publishing in theĀ Kurdish language, although significant barriers remain.[61]Ā At the same time, the PKK was blacklisted in many countries. On 2 April 2004, theĀ Council of the European UnionĀ added the PKK to its list of terrorist organizations. Later that year, theĀ US TreasuryĀ moved to freeze assets of branches of the organization. The PKK went through a series of changes, and in 2003 it ended the unilateral truce declared when Ćcalan was captured.[62]
On 20 March 2016, the PKK announced the establishment of Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement, a coalition ofĀ Maoists,Ā Marxists-Leninists, Apoists,Ā CommunistsĀ andĀ Hoxhaistswhich aim to attain “democracy and a free future” for “peoples against Imperialism, Capitalism, Chauvinism, Fascism and Racism”, by working towards the overthrow of the rulingĀ AKP government, who they deem collaborativeĀ fascist.[63]
Ideology, aims
The organization originated in the 1970s from the radical left and drew its membership from other existing leftist groups, mainly Dev-GenƧ.[64]:127Ā During the 1980s, the movement included and cooperated with other ethnic groups, including ethnic Turks, who were following the radical left.[64]:127[64]:129Ā The organization initially presented itself as part of theĀ worldwideĀ communist revolution. Its aims and objectives have evolved over time towards the goal of national autonomy,[65]Ā andĀ democratic confederalism.[66][67][68]
Around 1995, the PKK ostensibly changed its aim from independence to a demand for equal rights and Kurdish autonomy within the Turkish state,[69][70][71]Ā though all the while hardly suspending their military attacks on the Turkish state except for ceasefires in 1999ā2004 and 2013ā2015. In 1995, Ćcalan said: “We are not insisting on a separate state under any condition. What we are calling for very openly is a state model where a people’s basic economic, cultural, social, and political rights are guaranteed”.[70]
Whilst this shift in the mid-nineties has been interpreted as one from a call for independence to an autonomous republic,[72]Ā some scholars have concluded that the PKK still maintains independence as the ultimate goal, but through society-building rather than state-building.[73][74]
The organization has adapted the newĀ Democratic confederalistĀ views of its arrested leader, which aim to replace theĀ United Nations,Ā CapitalismĀ andĀ Nation StateĀ with the Democratic Federalism which is described as a “system of popularly elected administrative councils, allowing local communities to exercise autonomous control over their assets, while linking to other communities via a network of confederal councils.[76]
Followers of Ćcalan and members of the PKK are known, after his diminutive name, asĀ ApocuĀ (Apo-ites) under his movement,Ā ApoculukĀ (Apoism).[77]
Organization
The PKK has multiple heads in various countries, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia and West European countries.[78]Ā However,Ā Abdullah ĆcalanĀ was the unchallenged leader of the organization. After the capture of Ćcalan, authorities induced him to publicly plead for a ceasefire.[79]Ā Though serving life imprisonment, Ćcalan is still considered the honorary leader and figurehead of the organization.[80]
Murat KarayılanĀ led the organization from 1999 to 2013. In 2013 Cemil Bayik and BesĆŖ Hozat assumed as the first joint leadership.[81]Ā Cemil Bayik, beside Abdullah Ćcalan, Kesire Yildirim Ćcalan andĀ Haki KarerĀ was one of the core leaders. The organization appointed “Doctor Bahoz,” the nom de guerre ofĀ Fehman Huseyin, aĀ Syrian Kurd, in charge of the movement’s military operations signifying the long-standing solidarity among Kurds from all parts of Kurdistan.[82]
Wings[
Umbrella organization
In 1985, the National Liberation Front of Kurdistan (Kurdish:Ā Eniye Rizgariye Navata Kurdistanā, ERNK) was established by the PKK as itsĀ popular frontĀ wing, with the role of both creating propaganda for the party, and as anĀ umbrella organizationĀ for PKK organizations in different segments of the Kurdish population, such as theĀ peasantry, workers, youth, and women. It was dissolved in 1999, after theĀ capture of Abdullah Ćcalan.[83][84]
Armed wing
The PKK has an armed wing, originally formed in 1984 as the Kurdistan Freedom Brigades (Kurdish:Ā Hazen Rizgariya Kurdistanā, HRK),[85]Ā renamed to the People’s Liberation Army of Kurdistan (Kurdish:Ā Arteshen Rizgariya Gelli Kurdistanā, ARGK) in 1986,[83]Ā and again renamed to theĀ People’s Defense ForcesĀ (Kurdish:Ā HĆŖzĆŖn Parastina Gelā, HPG) in 1999.[86]
Women’s armed wing
TheĀ Free Women’s UnitsĀ of Star (Kurdish:Ā YekĆ®neyĆŖn JinĆŖn Azad ĆŖn Starā,[87]Ā YJA-STAR) was established in 2004 as the women’s armed wing of the PKK, emphasizing the issue of women’s liberation.[14]
Training camps
The first training camps were established in 1982 in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and also inĀ Beqaa ValleyĀ with the support of the Syrian government.[88][89]Ā After the Iran-Iraq war and the Kurdish civil war, the PKK moved all its camps to Northern Iraq in 1998. The PKK had also completely moved toĀ Qandil MountainsĀ fromĀ Beqaa Valley, under intensive pressure, after Syria expelled Ćcalan and shut down all camps established in the region.[89]Ā At the time, Northern Iraq was experiencing a vacuum of control after theĀ Gulf War-relatedĀ Operation Provide Comfort. Instead of a single training camp which could be easily destroyed, the organization created many small camps. During this period the organization set up a fully functioning enclave with training camps, storage facilities, and reconnaissance and communications centers.
In 2007, the organization was believed to have camps strung out through the mountains that straddle the border between Turkey and Iraq, including in Sinaht, Haftanin, Kanimasi and Zap.[90]Ā The organization developed two types of camps. The mountain camps, located in Turkey, Iraq and Iran, are used as forward bases from which militants carry out attacks against Turkish military bases. The units deployed there are highly mobile and the camps have only minimal infrastructure.[90]Ā The other permanent camps, in the Qandil Mountains of Iraq, have more developed infrastructureāincluding a field hospital, electricity generators and a large proportion of the PKK’s lethal and non-lethal supplies.[90]Ā The organization is also using the Qandil mountain camps for its political activities.
It was claimed in 2004 that there was another political training camp in Belgium, evidence that the organization had used training camps in Europe for political and ideological training.[91]
The organization had sympathizer parties in theĀ Grand National Assembly of TurkeyĀ beginning in the early 1990s. The establishment of direct links to the organization has been a question. In sequenceĀ HEP/DEP/HADEP/DEHAP/DTPĀ and theĀ BDP, which later changed its name toĀ Democratic Regions PartyĀ (DBP) on 11 July 2014,[92]Ā as well as theĀ HDPĀ have been accused of sympathizing with the PKK, since they have refused to brand it as a terrorist group.
Political organizations established in Turkey are banned from propagating or supporting separatism. Several political parties supporting Kurdish rights have been allegedly banned on this pretext. The constitutional court claimed to find direct links between theĀ HEP/DEP/HADEPĀ and the PKK. In 2008 the DTP-party was prosecuted by the constitutional court. It is reported that Turkey has used the PKK as an excuse to close Kurdish political parties.
Turkish-Kurdish politician and conspiracistĀ AbdĆ¼lmelik FıratĀ had claimed theĀ Democratic Society PartyĀ (DTP) was founded by the PKK, and that 80 percent of Kurds do not vote for this party.[93]Ā Senior DTP leaders maintain that they support a unified Turkey within a democratic framework.Ā Aysel TuÄlukĀ published an article inĀ RadikalĀ in May 2007 as the co-president of DTP, to prove that claim.[94]
Several parliamentarians and other elected representatives have been jailed for speaking in Kurdish, carrying Kurdish colors or otherwise allegedly “promoting separatism”, most famous among them beingĀ Leyla Zana.[95]Ā The European Court of Human RightsĀ has condemned Turkey for arresting and executing Kurdish writers, journalists and politicians in numerous occasions. Between 1990 and 2006 Turkey was condemned to pay 33 million euros in damages in 567 cases. The majority of the cases were related to events that took place in southeastern Anatolia[96]Ā Politicians of theĀ HDPĀ are often accused and prosecuted for being members of the PKK.[97]Ā In Iraq the political party Tevgera AzadĆ® is said to have close to the PKK.[98]
During the controversialĀ Ergenekon trialsĀ in Turkey, allegations have been made that the PKK is linked to elements of the Turkish intelligence community.
Åamil Tayyar, author and member of the rulingĀ AK Party, claimed that Ćcalan was released in 1972 after just three months’ detention on the initiative of theĀ National Intelligence OrganizationĀ (MillĆ® Ä°stihbarat TeÅkilatı, MÄ°T), and that his 1979 escape to Syria was aided by elements in MÄ°T.[99]Ā Ćcalan has admitted making use of money given by the MIT to the PKK, which he says was provided as part of MIT efforts to control him.[100]
Former police special forces memberĀ Ayhan ĆarkınĀ alleged that the state, using the clandestineĀ Ergenekon network, colluded with militant groups such as the PKK,Ā Dev-SolĀ andĀ Turkish Hezbollah, with the goal of profiting from the war.[101]
A witness to the trials testified that GeneralĀ Levent Ersƶz, former head ofĀ JITEM, had frequent contact with PKK commanderĀ CemĆ®l Bayik.[102]
According to official figures, it was claimed that nearly 2000 PKK members becameĀ itirafƧıĀ (“confessors”) after their arrest. Some were persuaded or coerced to play an active role in the conflict, particularly under the direction of theĀ Turkish Gendarmerie‘s unofficialĀ JÄ°TEMunit.[citation needed]
Activities
During its establishment in the mid-1970s, amidĀ violent clashes country-wide, the organization used classic violent methods, such as the alleged failed assassination of Mehmet Celal Bucak as aĀ propaganda-of-the-deed.[64]Ā After theĀ 1980 military coup, the organization developed into a paramilitary organization using resources it acquired in Syria, Russia, Europe andĀ Beqaa ValleyĀ in part of ex-Syrian-controlled Lebanon. After 1984, PKK began also to use theĀ MaoistĀ theory ofĀ people’s war.[103][104]
In the first phase (1978ā1984), the PKK tried to gain the support of the Kurdish population. It attacked the machinery of government and distributed propaganda in the region. PKK tactics were based onĀ ambush,Ā sabotage, riots, protests, andĀ demonstrationsĀ against the Turkish government. During these years, the PKK also fought a turf war against other radical Islamist Kurdish and Turkish organisations in Turkey. Turkish newspapers claimed that the PKK effectively used the prison force to gain appeal among the population which PKK has denied.[109][110]Ā In the whole Turkey, this period was characterized by violent clashes which culminated in theĀ 1980 military coup.
During this time, the organization argued that its violent actions against the government forces were explained by the need to defend Kurds in the context of what it considered as the massive cultural suppression of Kurdish identity (including the 1983 Turkish Language Act Ban) and cultural rights carried out by other governments of the region.[111]Ā Turkey also used violent and oppressive methods against its Kurdish citizens to stop them supporting the PKK.
Armed rebellion 1984ā1999
In the second phase (1984ā1999), which followed the return of civilian rule in 1983, escalating attacks were made on the government’s military and vital institutions all over the country. The objective was to destabilize the Turkish authority through a long, low-intensity confrontation. In addition to skirmishing with Turkish military and police forces and localĀ village guards, the PKK has conducted bomb attacks on government and police installations.[112]Ā KidnappingĀ and assassination against government and military officials and Kurdish tribal leaders who were named as puppets of the state were performed as well. WidespreadĀ sabotagesĀ were continued from the first stage. Turkish sources had also claimed that the PKK carried out kidnappings of tourists, primarily inĀ Istanbul, but also at different resorts. However, the PKK had in its history arrested 4 tourists and released them all after warning them to not enter the war zone. The vast majority of PKK’s actions have taken place mainly in Turkey against the Turkish military, although it has on occasions co-operated with other Kurdish nationalist paramilitary groups in neighboring states, such as Iraq and Iran.[113]Ā The PKK has also attacked Turkish diplomatic and commercial facilities across Western Europe in the late 1980s. In effect, the Turkish state has led a series ofĀ counter-insurgencyĀ operations against the PKK, accompanied by political measures, starting with an explicit denunciation of separatism in theĀ 1982 Constitution, and including proclamation of theĀ state of emergencyĀ in various PKK-controlled territories starting in 1983 (when the military relinquished political control to the civilians). This series of administrative reforms against terrorism included in 1985 the creation ofĀ village guard systemĀ by the then prime ministerĀ Turgut Ćzal. Ćcalan, in presence of PUK leaderĀ Jalal TalabaniĀ declared a unilateral cease fire in 1993, and said the PKK did not want to separate from Turkey, but Turkey did not respond to it.[114]Ā Turkey was involved in serious human rights violations during the 1990s. The ECHR has condemned Turkey for executions of Kurdish civilians, torturing, forced displacements and massive arrests.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, in an effort to win increased support from the Kurdish peasantry, the PKK altered its leftist secular ideology to better accommodate and accept Islamic beliefs. The group also abandoned its previous strategy of attacking Kurdish and Turkish civilians who were against them, focusing instead on government and military targets.[115]Ā In its campaign, the organization has been accused of carrying out atrocities against both Turkish and Kurdish civilians and its actions have been criticised by human rights groups such asĀ Amnesty International[116]Ā andĀ Human Rights Watch[117][citation needed]. Similar actions of the Turkish state have also been criticized by these same groups.
Cease fire 1999ā2004
The third phase (1999ā2012), after the capture of Ćcalan, PKK reorganized itself and new leaders were chosen by its members. The PKK wasn’t active between 2000 and 2003. The organization made radical changes to survive, such as changing its ideology and setting new goals. At the same time, the PKK continued to recruit new members and sustain its fighting force.
According to Turkish sources, in April 2002 at its 8th Party Congress, the PKK changed its name to theĀ Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK)Ā and proclaimed a commitment to nonviolent activities in support of Kurdish rights. A PKK/KADEK spokesman stated that its armed wing, The People’s Defense Force, would not disband or surrender its weapons for reasons of self-defense. This statement by the PKK/KADEK avowing it would not lay down its arms underscores that the organization maintained its capability to carry out armed operations. PKK/KADEK established a new ruling council in April, its membership virtually identical to the PKK’s Presidential Council. The PKK/KADEK did not conduct an armed attack in 2002; however, the group periodically issued veiled threats that it will resume violence if the conditions of its imprisoned leader are not improved and its forces are attacked by Turkish military, and it continued its military training like before.
In November 2003, another congress was held which lead to renaming itself as theĀ People’s Congress of KurdistanĀ orĀ Kongra-Gel (KGK). The stated purpose of the organizational change was to leave behind nationalistic and state-building goals, in favor of creating a political structure to work within the existing nation-states.[118]Ā Through further internal conflict during this period, it is claimed that 1500 militants left the organization,[118]Ā along with many of the leading reformists, includingĀ Nizamettin TaÅĀ andĀ Abdullah Ćcalan‘s younger brotherĀ Osman Ćcalan[119]
Second insurgency 2004ā2012
Kongra-Gel called off the cease-fire at the start of June 2004, saying Turkish security forces had refused to respect the truce. Turkish security forces were increasingly involved in clashes with Kurdish separatist fighters. Ankara claimed that about 2,000 Kurdish fighters had crossed into Turkey from hideouts in mountainous northern Iraq in early June 2004.
While the fight against the Turkish security forces between 2004 and 2010 continued, the PKK and its ancillary organizations continued to enjoy substantial support among the Kurds of Turkey. In 2005, the original name of the organizationĀ PKKĀ was restored, while the Kongra-Gel became the legislature of theĀ Koma KomalĆŖn Kurdistan.[120][121]Ā Turkey’s struggle against the Kongra-Gel/PKK was marked by increased clashes across Turkey in 2005. In the Southeast, Turkish security forces were active in the struggle against the Kongra-Gel/PKK. There were bombings and attempted bombings in resort areas in western Turkey and Istanbul, some of which resulted in civilian casualties. A radical Kurdish separatist group calling itself theĀ Kurdish Freedom Hawks (TAK)Ā claimed responsibility for many of these attacks. The TAK is a rival to PKK that since 2006 repeatedly damaged the PKK’s efforts to negotiate cease-fires and unlike the PKK, is seeking to establish independent Kurdistan.[122]Ā In 2006 alone, the PKK claimed over 500 victims. In October 2006, the PKK allegedly declared a unilateral cease-fire that slowed the intensity and pace of its attacks, but attacks continued in response to Turkish security forces significant counterinsurgency operations, especially in the southeast. On 21 October 2011 Iranian foreign ministerĀ Ali Akbar SalehiĀ announced Iran would co-operate with Turkey in some military operations against the PKK.[123]
2012 was the most violent year in the armed conflict between the Turkish State and PKK since 1999. At least 541 individuals lost their lives as a result of the clashes including 316 militants and 282 soldiers. In contrast, 152 individuals lost their lives in 2009 until the Turkish government initiated negotiations with the PKK leadership.[124]Ā The failure of this negotiations contributed to violence that were particularly intensified in 2012. The PKK encouraged by the rising power of the Syrian Kurds increased its attacks in the same year.
During theĀ Syrian Civil War, the Kurds in Syria have established control over their own region with the help of the Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party as well as with support from the Kurdistan Regional Government inĀ Erbil, under PresidentĀ Masoud Barzani.[125]
In late 2012, the Turkish government began secret talks with Ćcalan for aĀ ceasefire.[126]Ā To facilitate talks, government officials transmitted letters between Ćcalan in jail to PKK leaders in northern Iraq.[127]Ā On 21 March 2013, a ceasefire was announced.[128]Ā On 25 April, it was announced that the PKK would leave Turkey. CommanderĀ Murat KarayılanĀ remarked “As part of ongoing preparations, the withdrawal will begin on May 8, 2013. Our forces will use their right to retaliate in the event of an attack, operation or bombing against our withdrawing guerrilla forces and the withdrawal will immediately stop.”[129]Ā The semi-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq welcomed the idea of refugees from its northern neighbor.[130]Ā The BDP held meetings across the region to explain the pending withdrawal to concerned citizens. “The 8th of May is a day we both anticipate and fear,” explained party leader Pinar Yilmaz. “We don’t trust the government at all. Many people here are afraid that once the guerrillas are gone, the Turkish military will crack down on us again.”[128]
The withdrawal began as planned with groups of fighters crossing the border from southeastern Turkey to northern Iraq.[126]Ā Iraqi leadership in Baghdad, however, declared that it would not accept armed groups into its territory. “The Iraqi government welcomes any political and peaceful settlement”, read an official statement. “[But] it does not accept the entry of armed groups to its territories that can be used to harm Iraq’s security and stability.”[130]Ā The prospect of armed Kurdish forces in northern Iraq threatens to increase tensions between the region and Baghdad who are already at odds over certain oil producing territory. PKK spokesman Ahmet Deniz sought to ease concerns stating the plan would boost democracy. “The [peace] process is not aimed against anyone,” he said “and there is no need for concerns that the struggle will take on another format and pose a threat to others.”[130]
It is estimated that between 1,500 and 2,000 PKK fighters resided in Turkey at the time.[citation needed]Ā The withdrawal process was expected to take several months even if Iraq does not intervene to try to stop it.[130]Ā On 14 May 2013, the first groups of 13 male and female fighters entered Iraq’s Heror area near the Metina mountain after leaving Turkey. They carried with them Kalashnikov assault rifles, light machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers before a welcoming ceremony.[131]
Kurdish PKK guerilla, 23 March 2014
On 29 July 2013, the PKK issued an ultimatum in saying that the peace deal would fail if reforms were not begun to be implemented within a month.[132]Ā In October, Cemil Bayik warned that unless Turkey resumed the peace process, the PKK would resume operations to defend itself against it. He also accused Turkey of waging a proxy war against Kurds during theĀ Syrian Civil WarĀ by supporting other extremist rebels who wereĀ fighting them.[133]
Iraqi Kurdistan PresidentĀ Masoud BarzaniĀ backed the initiative saying, alongside Erdogan: “This is a historic visit for me … We all know it would have been impossible to speak here 15 or 20 years ago. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has taken a very brave step towards peace. I want my Kurdish and Turkish brothers to support the peace process.”[134]
2014 action against Islamic State and renewed tensions in Turkey
The PKK engaged theĀ Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantĀ (ISIL) forces in Syria in mid-July 2014[135]Ā as part of the Syrian Civil War. In August the PKK engaged IS in Northern Iraq and pressured the Government of Turkey to take a stand against IS.[136][137]Ā PKK forces helped tens of thousands ofĀ YazidisĀ escape an encircledĀ Mount Sinjar.[138]Ā In September 2014, during theĀ Siege of KobanĆ®, the PKK, receiving directĀ U.S. militaryĀ support,[139]Ā engaged withĀ Islamic StateĀ forces in Syria who were attacking Kurdish city Kobane, which resulted in conflicts with Turks on the border and an end to a cease-fire that had been in place over a year.[140]Ā The PKK accused Turkey of supporting ISIS. The PKK participated in many offensives against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.[141]
A number of Turkish Kurds rallied in large-scale street protests, demanding that the government in Ankara take more forceful action to combat IS and to enable Kurdish militants already engaged against IS to more freely move and resupply. These protests included a PKK call for its supporters to turn out.[142]Ā Clashes between police and protesters killed at least 31 people. The Turkish government continued to restrict PKK-associated fighters’ movement across its borders, arresting 260Ā People’s Protection UnitsĀ fighters who were moving back into Turkey. On 14 October, Turkish Air Force fighter-bombers attacked PKK positions in the vicinity of Daglica, Hakkari Province.[143]
Turkish military statements claimed that the bombings were in response to PKK attacks on a Turkish military outpost in the area. The Firat news agency, which Al Jazeera describes as “close to the PKK”, claimed that Turkish forces had been shelling the PKK positions for days beforehand and that the PKK action had itself been retaliation for those artillery strikes.[144]Ā The PKK had already reported several Turkish attacks against their troops months before Turkish bombing started.
Percentage of the popular vote won by the pro-KurdishĀ Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP)Ā in theĀ 2015 Turkish general election. “The HDP’s elections results, which are a proxy indicator of popular support for the PKK, show that the group has followers throughout the country.”[145]
In the months before the parliamentary election of 2015, as the “Kurdish-focused” HDP’s likelihood of crossing the 10% threshold for entry into the government seemed more likely, Erdogan gave speeches and made comments that repudiated the settlement process and the existence of a Kurdish problem and refusing to recognize the HDP as having any role to play despite their long participation as intermediaries.[146]Ā These announcements increased distrust of the government’s good faith among Kurdish leaders. In July 2015, Turkey finally became involved in the war against ISIL. While they were doing so, they decided to bomb PKK targets in Iraq.[147]Ā The bombings came a few days after PKK was suspected of assassinating two Turkish police officers inĀ Ceylanpınar,Ā Åanlıurfa, accused by the PKK of having links with ISIS after theĀ 2015 SuruƧ bombing.[148][149]Ā The PKK has blamed Turkey for breaking the truce by bombing the PKK in 2014 and 2015 continuously.
In August 2015, the PKK announced that they would accept another ceasefire with Turkey only underĀ USĀ guarantees.[150]Ā PKK announced a one-sided ceasefire in October 2015 near election time, but the government refused.[citation needed]Ā The leadership of Iraqi Kurdistan has condemned the Turkish air strikes in its autonomous region in the north of Iraq.[151]
The number of casualties since 23 July was claimed by Turkish government to be 150 Turkish officers and over 2,000 Kurdish rebels killed (by September).[152]Ā In December 2015, Turkish military operation in southeastern Turkey has killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands and caused massive destruction in residential areas.[153][154]
The areas in which the group operates are generally mountainous rural areas and dense urban areas. The mountainous terrain offers an advantage to members of the PKK by allowing them to hide in a network of caves.[citation needed]
Recruiting[
PKK female fighters
Since its foundation, the PKK has recruited new fighters mainly from Turkey, but also from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Western countries using various recruitment methods, such as using nationalist propaganda and its gender equality ideology. At its establishment, it included a small number of female fighters but over time, however, the number increased significantly and by the early 1990s, 30 percent of its 17,000 armed fighting forces were women.[155]Ā In much of rural Turkey, where male-dominated tribal structures, and conservativeĀ MuslimĀ norms were commonplace, the organization increased its number of members through the recruitment of women from different social structures and environments, also from families that migrated to several European countries afterĀ 1960 as guest workers.[155]Ā It was reported by a Turkish university that 88% of the subjects initially believed that equality was a key objective, and that they joined the organization based on this claim.[156]Ā In 2007, approximately 1,100 of 4,500ā5,000 total members were women.[155]
In its early stages, the PKK recruited young women by kidnapping them. This forced families whose children were already a member of the organization to cooperate and thus turning them into accomplices, which increased the number of women joining the group, according to the publication, published by the Jamestown Foundation.[155][157][158]
The organization is also actively recruiting child soldiers and it has been accused of abducting more than 2,000 children by Turkish Security Forces. The independent reports by theĀ Human Rights Watch (HRW), theĀ United Nations(UN) and theĀ Amnesty InternationalĀ have confirmed the recruitment and use of child soldiers by the organization and its armed wings since the 1990s.[107][159][160][161]
According to the TEPAV think-tank which did research on the identities of 1,362 PKK fighters who lost their lives between 2001 and 2011, 42% of the recruits were under 18, with over a quarter of these being under 15 years of age at the time of recruiting. The organization is also believed to have used the children in the drug trade.[162]
On 22 December 2016, a report published byĀ Human Rights Watch (HRW)Ā stated that the HPG, the armed wing of the PKK, and the YBS, a Yazidi militia affiliated with the PKK, had actively recruited child soldiers since the 2015. The report stated that more than 29 cases had been documented, and some recruited children were under 15 when they had been recruited, which is a war crime under international law.[159]
Weapons
In July 2007, the weapons captured between 1984 and 2007 from the PKK operatives and their origins published by the Turkish General Staff indicates that the operatives erased some of the serial numbers from their weapons. The total number of weapons and the origins for traceable ones were:[163]
Ā
The choice and origin of the traceable weapons (July 2007)[163]
60.8% from Italy, 28.3% from Russia, 6.2% from Germany
Turkish authorities claimed that four members of the organization, who handed themselves over to authorities after escaping from camps in northern Iraq, claimed they had seen two U.S. armored vehicles deliver weapons, which was widely reported and further stoked suspicions about U.S. policy in Iraq.[164]Ā The US envoy denied these claims.[165]Ā The arms were claimed to be part of theĀ BlackwaterĀ Worldwide arms smuggling allegations. The probe of organization’s weapons and the investigation of Blackwater employees were connected.[166]Ā The PKK also denied these claims.
Resources
Funding
Parties and concerts are organized by branch groups.[167]Ā Additionally, it is believed that the PKK earns money through the sale of various publications, as well as receiving revenues from legitimate businesses owned by the organization, and from Kurdish-owned businesses in Turkey, Russia, Iraq, Iran and Western Europe.[168][169]Ā Besides affiliate organizations, it is claimed that there are sympathizer organizations such as theĀ Confederation of Kurdish AssociationsĀ in Europe and the International Kurdish Businessmen Union which constantly exchanges information and perform legitimate or semi-legitimate commercial activities and donations.[citation needed]
According to theĀ European Police Office (EUROPOL), the organization collects money from its members, using labels like ādonationsā and āmembership feesā which are seen as a fact extortion and illegal taxation by the authorities. There are also indications that the organization is actively involving in money laundering, illicit drugs and human trafficking, as well as illegal immigration inside and outside the EU for funding and running its activities.[170]
Drug trafficking
PKK’s involvement in drug trafficking has been documented since the 1990s.[171]Ā A report by Interpol published in 1992 states that the PKK, along with nearly 178 Kurdish organizations were suspected ofĀ illegal drug tradeĀ involvement. The BritishĀ National Criminal Intelligence ServiceĀ determined that the PKK obtained $75Ā million from drug smuggling in Europe in 1993 alone.[172]Ā Members of the PKK have been designated narcotics traffickers by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[173]Ā TheĀ Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic security agency, echoed this finding in its 2011Ā Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, stating that despite the U.S Department of Treasury designation, there was “no evidence that the organizational structures of the PKK are directly involved in drug trafficking”.[174]
On 14 October 2009, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’sĀ Office of Foreign Assets ControlĀ (OFAC) targeted the senior leadership of the PKK, designating Murat Karayılan, the head of the PKK, and high-ranking members Ali Riza Altun andĀ ZĆ¼beyir AydarĀ as foreign narcotics traffickers at the request of Turkey.[173]Ā On 20 April 2011, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced the designation of PKK foundersĀ CemĆ®l BayikĀ andĀ Duran KalkanĀ and other high-ranking members as Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers (SDNT) pursuant to theĀ Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActĀ (Kingpin Act). Pursuant to the Kingpin Act, the designation freezes any assets the designees may have underĀ U.S. jurisdictionĀ and prohibits U.S. persons from conducting financial or commercial transactions with these individuals.[175]
According to research conducted by journalist Aliza Marcus, the PKK accepted the support of smugglers in the region. Aliza Marcus claimed that some of those Kurdish smugglers who were involved in the drugs trade, either because they truly believed in the PKKāor because they thought it a good business practice (avoid conflicts)āfrequently donated money to the PKK rebels. She also claimed that there were reports of PKK supporters in Europe who used their positions and contacts to trade in drugsāand then handed some of the profits to the PKK. And when PKK activists needed more money, they had no qualms about approaching Kurds who trafficked in narcotics. However, according to Aliza Marcus, it does not seem that the PKK, as an organization, directly produced or traded in narcotics.[176]
Following theĀ SDFĀ capture ofĀ Raqqa, YPJ andĀ YPGĀ troops raised a large banner of Abdullah Ćcalan in the city centre.[177]
In 2018, the state-run new agency AA claimed that the PKK has successfully kept its drug production and trafficking activities underground, both across the globe and within Turkey, and that the security forces had carried out more than 414 drug trafficking operations against the organization since the 1980. The Turkish authorities have also claimed that the organization gains 1,5Ā billion USD yearly from drug trafficking.[178][179]
The report, published by theĀ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), stated that the instability in Iraq has helped the PKK to develop and use Iraq as a transhipment point for Afghan heroin. The PKK was reported to collect taxes per kilogram of heroin trafficked to Turkey from the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq borders, with potential profits reaching US$200Ā million annually.[180]
TheĀ EUROPOLĀ which has monitored the organization’s activities inside the EU has also reported the organization’s involvement in the trafficking of drugs and human beings to raise funds for its terrorist activities inside and outside the EU.[170]
On 1 January 2012, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’sĀ Office of Foreign Assets ControlĀ (OFAC) announced the designation of Moldovan-based individuals Zeyneddin Geleri, Cerkez Akbulut, and Omer Boztepe as specially designated narcotics traffickers forĀ drug traffickingĀ on behalf of the PKK inĀ Europe. According to the OFAC, Zeynedding Geleri was identified as a high-ranking member of the PKK while two others were activists. The OFAC stated that theĀ drug traffickingĀ is still one of the organization’s criminal activities it uses to obtain weapons and materials.[181]
Human resources
In 2008, according to information provided by the Intelligence Resource Program of theĀ Federation of American ScientistsĀ the strength of the organization in terms of human resources consists of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 militants of whom 3,000 to 3,500 are located in northern Iraq.[182]Ā With the new wave of fighting from 2015 onwards, observers noted that active support for the PKK had become a “mass phenomenon” in majority ethnic Kurdish cities in the Southeast of the Republic of Turkey, with large numbers of local youth joining PKK-affiliated local militant groups.[183]
International support
At the height of its campaign, the organization received support from many countries. According to Turkey, countries the PKK has previously/currently received support from include: Greece,[184][185]Ā Iran,[186]Ā Iraq,[187]Ā Russia[188]Ā and Syria.[186]Ā The level of support given has changed throughout this period. Official Turkish sources also allege cooperation between the PKK and theĀ Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of ArmeniaĀ (ASALA).[189]
Greece
According to Ali KĆ¼lebi, president of an Ankara-based nationalist think tank TUSAM, “It is obvious that the PKK is supported by Greece, considering the PKK’s historical development with major support from Greece.” KĆ¼lebi alleged in 2007 that PKK militants received training at a base inĀ Lavrion, near Athens.[190]Ā Retired Greek L.T. General Dimitris Matafias and retired Greek Navy Admiral Antonis Naxakis had visited the organization’s Mahsun Korkmaz base camp in Lebanon’sĀ Beqaa ValleyĀ in October 1988 along with parliamentarians from the center-leftĀ PASOK.[191]Ā At the time it was reported that the general had assumed responsibility for training. Greeks also dispatched arms through the Republic of Cyprus.[191]Ā In December 1993, Greek foreign affairs ministerĀ Theodoros PangalosĀ was quoted as saying “we must be supportive of the Kurdish people to be free”.[192]Ā Greece declined to join Germany and France and the eleven other members at the EU to ban the organization.[192]Ā During his trial, Ćcalan admitted, as quoted inĀ HĆ¼rriyet, that “Greece has for years supported the PKK movement. They even gave us arms and rockets. Greek officers gave guerrilla training and explosives training to our militants” at a camp in Lavrion, Greece.[193]
Syria
From early 1979 to 1999,Ā SyriaĀ had provided valuable safe havens to PKK in the region ofĀ Beqaa Valley. However, afterĀ the undeclared warĀ between Turkey and Syria, Syria placed restrictions on PKK activity on its soil such as not allowing the PKK to establish camps and other facilities for training and shelter or to have commercial activities on its territory. Syria recognized the PKK as a terrorist organization in 1998.[194]Ā Turkey was expecting positive developments in its cooperation with Syria in the long term, but even during the course of 2005, there were PKK operatives of Syrian nationality operating in Turkey.[167][195]
Iran
Iran provided PKK with supplies in the form of weapons and funds. However, Iran later listed the PKK as a terrorist organization afterĀ Party for a Free Life in KurdistanĀ used Iran’s supply of resources to the PKK on its own soil.[citation needed]
Armenia
Turkish and Azeri sources have alleged in 2007 that PKK maintains camps in the Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.[196]Ā Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakosyan called these allegations “sheer nonsense” in 2008.[197]Ā In May 2008 a commentary in the right-wing newspaperĀ Yeni ÅafakĀ claimed that the PKK’s leadership, “perhaps feeling insecure in northern Iraq, was mulling a move to Nagorno-Karabakh.” In response, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry press spokesman Vladimir Karapetian stated, “The unsubstantiated rumors about the intentions on the side of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to move to Nagorno-Karabakh and controlled territories cannot be called anything less than another provocation.”[198]
FormerĀ KGB–FSBĀ officerĀ Alexander LitvinenkoĀ alleges that PKK’s leader Abdullah Ćcalan was trained byĀ KGB–FSB.[199]Ā As of 2008, Russia is still not among the states that list PKK as a terrorist group despite intense Turkish pressure.
United Kingdom
MED TVĀ broadcast for five years in the UK, until its license was revoked by the regulators the Independent Television Commission (ITC) in 1999. The PKK has been listed as a terrorist organization since 29 March 2001. In 2008, the United Kingdom detained members of the PKK and seized the assets of the PKK’s representative in Britain, Selman Bozkur, alias “Dr. HĆ¼seyin”. His assets remain frozen.[200]
Support of various European states
The Dutch police had allegedly raided the ‘PKK paramilitary camp’ in the Dutch village ofĀ LiempdeĀ and arrested 29 people in November 2004, but all were soon released.[201]Ā Denmark allows Kurdish satellite television stations (such as ROJ-TV), which Turkey claims has links with the PKK, to operate in Denmark and broadcast into Turkey.[202]
Various PKK leaders, including Hidir Yalcin, Riza Altun, Zubeyir Aydar, and Ali Haydar Kaytan all lived in Europe and moved freely. The free movement was achieved by strong ties with influential persons.Ā Danielle Mitterrand, the wife of the formerĀ President of FranceFranƧois Mitterrand, had active connections during the 1990s with elements of the organization’s leadership that forced a downgrade in relationships between the two states.[203]Ā After harboring him for some time, Austria arranged a flight to Iraq for Ali Rıza Altun, a suspected key figure with anĀ InterpolĀ arrest warrant on his name.. Turkish foreign ministerĀ Abdullah GĆ¼lĀ summoned the Austrian ambassador and condemned Austria’s action.[204]Ā On 30 September 1995, while Ćcalan was in Syria,Ā DamascusĀ initiated contact with high-ranking GermanĀ CDUĀ MP Heinrich Lummer and German intelligence officials.
The Chief of the Turkish General Staff during 2007, GeneralĀ YaÅar BĆ¼yĆ¼kanıt, stated that even though the international struggle had been discussed on every platform and even though organizations such as the UN,Ā NATO, and EU made statements of serious commitment, to this day the necessary measures had not been taken.[205]Ā According to BĆ¼yĆ¼kanıt; “this conduct on one side has encouraged the terrorists, on the other side it assisted in widening their activities.[205]Ā “
Sedat LaƧiner, of the Turkish think tankĀ ISRO, says that US support of the PKK undermines the USĀ War on Terror.[206]Ā Seymour HershĀ claimed that the U.S. supportedĀ PEJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK.[207]Ā The head of the PKK’s militant arm, Murat Karayılan, claimed that Iran attempted to recruit the PKK to attack coalition forces, adding that Kurdish guerrillas had launched a clandestine war inĀ north-western Iran, ambushingĀ Iranian troops.[208]
Designation as a terrorist group
The PKK has been placed on Turkey’s terrorist list, as well as a number of allied governments and organizations.[17]
TheĀ European UnionĀ ā which TurkeyĀ aspires to joinĀ ā in 2011 renewed its official listing of the PKK as group or entity subject to “specific [EU] measures to combat terrorism” under itsĀ Common Foreign and Security Policy.[209]Ā First designated as such in 2002, the PKK was ordered to be removed from the EU terror list on 3 April 2008 by theĀ European Court of First InstanceĀ on the grounds that the EU had failed to give a proper justification for listing it in the first place.[210]Ā However, EU officials dismissed the ruling, stating that the PKK would remain on the list regardless of the legal decision.[211]
FranceĀ prosecutes Kurdish-French activists and bans organizations connected to the PKK on terrorism-related charges,[216]Ā having listed the group as a terrorist organization since 1993.[217]Ā However, French courts often refuse to extradite captured individuals accused of PKK connections to Turkey due to technicalities in French law, frustrating Turkish authorities[failed verification].[218]
The following other individual countries have listed or otherwise labelled the PKK in an official capacity as a terrorist organization:
States etc. not designating them as terrorist group
NATOĀ Secretary GeneralĀ Jens StoltenbergĀ explained at a 2019 press conference that “NATO does not have a public list where we list different organisations as terrorist organisations. Some other national organisations have that kind of list, for instance the UN or . . . and EU, but NATO does not have that kind of public list, where we list terrorist organisations.”[232]Ā Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, and fields the group’sĀ second-largestĀ armed contingent.
The PKK has never been designated as a terrorist organization by the UN.
RussiaĀ has long ignored Turkish pressure to ban the PKK,[233]Ā and the group is also not included in the official terror blacklist of China (PRC), Brazil, Switzerland, India and Egypt.[234][235]
The government ofĀ SwitzerlandĀ has rejected Turkish demands to blacklist the PKK,[236]Ā though it has taken its own measures to monitor and restrict the group’s activities on Swiss soil, including banning the collection of funds for the group in November 2008.[237]Switzerland considers only those organizations as terrorist organizations which are in the terrorist list of the United Nations.[238]
Flags
Party flags
Flag of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) (1978ā1995)[239]
Ćcalan, Abdullah.Ā Interviews and Speeches [about P.K.K.’s Kurdish cause]. London: Published jointly by Kurdistan Solidarity Committee and Kurdistan Information Centre, 1991. 46 p. Without ISBN
On the eve of today’s dramatic Commons vote on his withdrawal plan, 50 per cent said MPs should back it.
The Survation poll for the Daily Mail showed 38 per cent were against the deal with 12 per cent undecided.
The survey found a surge in support for the Tories following the Prime Minister’s breakthrough at this week’s EU summit. They are now on 32 per cent, five points up on their tally three weeks ago. Optimism was mounting in No 10 last night that MPs will back the agreement. A source said: ‘It is incredibly close, but it is doable.’
However the situation became even more tense when Sir Oliver Letwin tabled a plan to force Mr Johnson to seek another delay to Brexit. The move by the Tory former Cabinet minister, which is set to be backed by Labour and other opposition parties, could deny the PM a clear-cut vote on his deal today.
The survey found a surge in support for the Tories following the Prime Minister’s breakthrough at this week’s EU summit. They are now on 32 per cent, five points up on their tally three weeks ago. Optimism was mounting in No 10 last night that MPs will back the agreement. A source said: ‘It is incredibly close, but it is doable’
On a day of high drama:
France’s Emmanuel Macron piled pressure on Remainer MPs by warning he could veto any further Brexit delay;
Tory aides acknowledged that Sir Oliver’s move could force Mr Johnson to consider seeking another delay;
Seven Labour MPs publicly backed the deal, despite threats that they could be deselected ā a further 15 are said to be considering the move.
Campaigners pushing for a second referendum were planning a huge march on Parliament today;
Hardline ‘Spartan’ MPs prepared to meet this morning to decide whether to back Mr Johnson’s deal, amid signs that a hardcore will refuse;
The Governor of the Bank of England threw his weight behind the deal, describing it as ‘good news’;
David Trimble, an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, urged the DUP to drop its opposition;
Mr Johnson held out an olive branch to Labour MPs by pledging an automatic right to vote on whether to adopt future EU laws on workers’ rights;
Socialist leaders across the EU urged Jeremy Corbyn to back the deal;
Today’s poll shows that a total of 47 per cent of people say they support the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, while 38 per cent say they are against it.
Voters were also in no doubt as to who blinked first in the EU talks ā with 52 per cent saying the UK gave most ground. Only 20 per cent think Brussels backed down. A total of 47 per cent believe Mr Johnson’s plan should go to a referendum, compared with 44 against the idea.
Mr Johnson held out an olive branch to Labour MPs by pledging an automatic right to vote on whether to adopt future EU laws on workers’ rights
When voters are given a straight choice between the Prime Minister’s deal and remaining in the EU there is a dead heat, with both sides winning 50 per cent.
Remarkably, 29 per cent of Labour voters say they would back Mr Johnson’s deal in such a referendum; 71 per cent say they would not back his deal.
But a different picture emerges if, as argued by Brexiteers, voters are given a third option of leaving with No Deal. Remain gets most support, 45 per cent, based on first preferences ā though no option gets over the 50 per cent winning line. The poll showed that most of the extra backing for the Tories was at the expense of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, whose support has fallen by 3 per cent.
The results of the survey heap more humiliation on beleaguered Mr Corbyn. One in five of his own Labour voters would rather see Mr Johnson in Downing Street. Millions of Labour supporters have written off his chances of ever seizing power.
Asked who they thought will win the next election, just 31 per cent of Labour voters think Mr Corbyn: exactly the same number, 31 per cent, say Mr Johnson will beat him.
If Mr Johnson delivers his pledge to leave the EU by October 31, he can expect a further surge in his ratings. A total of 33 per cent say they will be more likely to vote Conservative; 23 per cent say they will be less likely to do so.
A total of 42 per cent say that they will hold Parliament responsible for the delay ā twice the number, 21 per cent, who say Mr Johnson will have only himself to blame for the defeat
Boris Johnson: UK will ‘heave sigh of relief’ if Brexit deal passes
Moreover, if MPs throw out his proposal today, voters will not point the finger of blame at him.
A total of 42 per cent say that they will hold Parliament responsible for the delay ā twice the number, 21 per cent, who say Mr Johnson will have only himself to blame for the defeat.
More than one in two (52 per cent) say the new deal ‘honours the 2016 referendum’ compared with fewer than one in three (30 per cent) who say it does not.
Asked who has the best Brexit policy, Mr Johnson is way ahead of all the main party leaders; Mr Corbyn trails in last behind Mr Farage in second place, followed by SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson.
The chasm between Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn’s respective personal standing is illustrated by their ratings on ‘charisma’.
Here the Prime Minister scores plus 16 compared with Mr Corbyn’s minus 59.
For ‘intelligence’, Mr Johnson is plus 36 compared with the opposition leader’s minus seven.
A total of 41 per cent oppose the decision by Northern Ireland’s DUP to defy Mr Johnson today; seen as the main obstacle to him succeeding; 28 per cent say the DUP are right to oppose him.
Last night, Mr Johnson said that the showdown in the House of Commons was a ‘very big moment for our country’.
He said: ‘I think that getting it done would be a chance for us to come together as a country and move on and focus on things that really matter to people. I think the sigh of relief that would go up, not just around Britain, but around the world, would be very, very large and passionate.’
The Prime Minister also insisted his deal was the best divorce agreement possible.
Survation interviewed 1,025 adults online on Thursday afternoon and Friday.
Boris Johnson: ‘This is a great deal for the whole United Kingdom’
Time to turn our backs on division and delay, Boris tells MPs
By Jason Groves for the Daily MailĀ
Boris Johnson urged MPs to turn their backs on ‘division and delay’ last night as he appeared to be within touching distance of a historic victory with his Brexit deal.
Speaking on the eve of his biggest parliamentary battle, the Prime Minister said there was now ‘no better outcome’ to the tortuous process of leaving the EU than MPs approving his deal.
Optimism was mounting in Downing Street last night that Mr Johnson was on course for an against-the-odds win in Parliament this afternoon.
In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg (right), the Prime Minister urged MPs to swing behind his Brexit deal on Saturday to avoid any more ‘division and delay’
One source said: ‘It’s been a good day. Things have been shifting in the right direction and there are still some key figures in play. It is incredibly close, but it is doable.’
If passed, the Prime Minister could bring forward the legislation needed to enact withdrawal from the EU as early as Monday, with a view to steering it through Parliament before the end of the month.
Mr Johnson has told EU leaders that the Withdrawal Agreement Bill could be pushed through in just six days if Parliament sits around the clock ā a fraction of the six weeks predicted by Theresa May.
In a series of broadcast interviews last night, the Prime Minister struck an emollient tone as he tried to win over a clutch of wavering Labour MPs whose support is needed to put his deal through.
LEADING ‘SPARTAN’ BACKS BORIS
Tory Eurosceptic ‘Spartans’ were torn over whether to back Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal last night ā with some seeking assurances that it could still allow a No Deal departure next year.
Members of the European Research Group of Conservative MPs will meet at Westminster this morning to decide whether to support the agreement before today’s crunch vote in the Commons.
As of last night, just 12 of the 28 Spartan MPs had publicly backed Mr Johnson’s deal.
Although none had said they would oppose it, a senior Eurosceptic predicted that a significant hardcore were likely to prove impossible to persuade.
Mark Francois, the deputy chairman of the European Research Group, was among those called in to see the Prime Minister yesterday. He said he still had ‘some concerns’ about specifics of the agreement.
But John Baron, one of 28 ‘Spartan’ MPs who voted against Theresa May’s deal three times, said the terms of the new deal suggested that the UK could still end up with a No Deal Brexit when the transition period finishes in December 2020.
He said: ‘We’re seeking assurances, the devil is in the detail still, but the reason I am inclined to vote for this one is very simple. Theresa May’s backstop could have had us locked into that arrangement indefinitely.
‘Boris Johnson has torn up that backstop, which means if the trade talks are not successful, after we hopefully agree the deal here… we could leave on No Deal terms.’
Remainers leapt on Mr Baron’s statement yesterday, with the People’s Vote campaign for a second referendum claiming it showed that the Government was not sincere about wanting a trade deal.
They suggested hardline Brexiteers were instead preparing for a No Deal Brexit when the transition ended.
The support of the Spartans is critical to the Prime Minister’s hopes of getting the deal through the Commons.
However one senior Eurosceptic was pessimistic about Mr Johnson’s chances yesterday, saying: ‘There will be a hardcore of the hardcore who vote against ā probably enough to be fatal.’
Privately, ministers agree that a small number of longstanding Eurosceptics, including the former Cabinet minister Sir John Redwood, will never be persuaded to back the deal.
They fear that others, such as former Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson, may be swayed to vote against the deal by their relationship with the DUP.
Mr Johnson has privately warned MPs that they will have the whip suspended if they fail to back his deal ā the same punishment meted out to 21 Tories who voted with Labour to block No Deal last month.
He said: ‘I think it’s a very big moment for our country but also it’s a big moment for our democracy and parliamentarians because I do think we have a choice.
‘We have to consider how long we can delay and seem to frustrate what was a pretty clear democratic expression of the will of the people and I think that it would be a great and a fine thing if we could get it done and come together tomorrow.’
Speaking to the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg, he added: ‘I just kind of invite everybody to imagine what it could be like tomorrow evening if we have settled this and we have respected the will of the people because we will then have a chance to move on.’
Mr Johnson and senior ministers, including the Chancellor Sajid Javid, spent yesterday lobbying wavering Conservatives, among them members of the group of 21 Tories kicked out of the party last month for opposing No Deal.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s political secretary Danny Kruger and chief whip Mark Spencer held discreet conversations with the band of Labour MPs from Leave-supporting seats who have indicated that they could back a deal.
Ministers believe that all but a handful of the hardline ‘Spartan’ MPs will now back the deal, despite the opposition of the DUP.
And there was mounting confidence that a significant number of Labour MPs were on the brink of coming across, opening up the possibility of a remarkable victory.
Downing Street was buoyed by comments by Emmanuel Macron suggesting that he could veto a further Brexit delay.
Ministers believe the threat could give cover to wavering Labour MPs who are opposed to No Deal but nervous about backing a Tory plan.
But there was irritation at Sir Oliver Letwin after he tabled an amendment that could force Mr Johnson to seek a Brexit delay as early as tonight ā something he has vowed never to do.
Sir Oliver’s amendment, which looks set to go through, could also deny the Prime Minister a clean vote on his deal.
Mr Johnson went out of his way yesterday to deny claims by Jeremy Corbyn that he plans to use Brexit to trigger a ‘race to the bottom’ on rights by tearing up EU regulations.
He said Britain was a ‘world leader’ in areas such as environmental protection and workers’ rights, adding: ‘There are ways in which we want to go further than the EU.’
The Prime Minister said his deal would unlock the right to strike free trade deals with the rest of the world, but also pledged to do a ‘jumbo free trade agreement’ with the EU as part of a ‘big, big deep and special partnership’.
He added that the deal ‘busts’ the UK out of the controversial Irish backstop, which critics said would keep Britain shackled to the EU for ever and make new trade deals impossible.
‘It busts out of [the] backstop, the previous problem with the deal that kept us locked in the customs union and the single market so, it’s a vast, vast, vast step forward,’ he said.
‘And what it also does, which is good, is it creates a period, a transition period from the end of October, end of this month ā there’s a period of standstill giving certainty to business and at the end of that it is perfectly correct that we will move to the new arrangements.’
Mr Johnson also said passing today’s vote, and the withdrawal legislation to come, would help to start healing the divisions created by the Brexit process.
He added a sigh of relief would go up ‘not just around Britain, but around the world’ if MPs finally agreed to back a deal.
He said: ‘Speaking as someone who has to think about the interests of the entire country, I don’t think the way the debate has gone on has been particularly brilliant for our politics, nor has it necessarily shown our politics in the best possible light.
‘I think that getting it done would be a chance for us to come together as a country and move on and focus on things that really matter to people.’
The Letwin Plot: Tory rebel wants to stop Parliament passing the deal until all legislation is approved – so the PM is forced to ask for an extension
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily MailĀ
There was anger in Downing Street last night over a parliamentary move that could deny Boris Johnson a clean vote on his Brexit deal today.
Former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin proposed an amendment yesterday that would withhold Parliament’s final support for the agreement until all the necessary legislation for it is approved.
If passed today, the amendment will prevent MPs from holding the so-called ‘meaningful vote’ on the Prime Minister’s deal.
The Government would also have to ask the EU for an extension to Britain’s withdrawal thanks to the so-called Benn Act, passed by MPs last month, which forces the Prime Minister to apply to delay Brexit until January 31 if his deal is not passed in the Commons.
Former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin (pictured) proposed an amendment that would withhold Parliament’s final support for the agreement until all the necessary legislation for it is approved
Last night, Government sources accused supporters of the controversial amendment ā which is likely to pass with Labour backing ā of trying to frustrate Brexit. One source said: ‘If it passes, it’s an act of sabotage dressed up as reasonableness. MPs are still trying to put off the moment of decision.’
Sir Oliver insisted that he was a supporter of the Prime Minister’s plans and that it was only designed to act as an insurance policy to ensure that the UK did not leave the EU without a deal on October 31.
A GUIDE TO SUPER SATURDAY
What is happening on Super Saturday?
Mr Johnson will formally present his divorce accord to the Commons and ask MPs to vote for it.
The House of Commons usually sits from Monday to Thursday, and on the occasional Friday.
But today there will be an extraordinary sitting of Parliament – the first on a weekend since April 1982 – to discuss Boris Johnson’s new Brexit deal.
On Thursday, MPs approved a motion to hold the first weekend sitting of Parliament since the Falklands conflict.
The day will start with the PM setting out the terms of the agreement in a statement to the House which is due to begin shortly after 9.30am.
Following a lengthy debate MPs will then vote on the deal – and any amendments which are selected by Commons Speaker John Bercow – at approximately 2.30pm.
If Parliament does not vote for the agreement on Saturday, Mr Johnson faces an almighty clash over whether he will request a further Brexit delay from Brussels as he is compelled to under the Benn Act.
What amendments have been tabled and what would they do?
At the moment there are three amendments which have been officially put forward by MPs and which could be put to a vote.
One from an SNP MP would force the government to revoke Article 50 while another from the SNP would reject the PM’s deal and demand a Brexit delay until January 31 in order to make time for an election.
If either of those are selected they are very unlikely to secure the backing of a majority of MPs.
But the third amendment has a much better chance of passing and would represent a major headache for the government.
What happens if MPs vote in favour of the PM’s deal?
This would be the most straight forward option from a ‘what happens next’ perspective.
The final vote on the deal is expected to be very tight and nobody knows for certain which way it will go.
But if the deal were to be agreed by the Commons the government could then bring forward the laws needed to enact the UK’s departure from the EU.
The accord would then be put to the European Parliament to be ratified. Assuming MEPs did not block the deal the UK would then leave the EU with an accord on October 31.
But a Government source said: ‘The amendment is not about conditional approval ā it is explicitly withholding approval.
‘The vast majority of the signatories have no intention of ever voting for a deal, and have never done so. They want an extension and a chance for a second referendum.’
The motivation behind the Letwin amendment had apparently been the prospect of Mr Johnson’s deal passing today, only for a No Deal Brexit to happen on October 31.
This would occur if the deal passed the Commons today, only to fall away in the subsequent days when MPs were actually required to pass the legislation that enacts it. Some had feared this could then unlock a route to a No Deal exit on October 31.
Under the terms of the amendment, the Commons withholds approval of the deal until the legislation has passed first. Supporters of the plan said they wanted an insurance policy against a No Deal Brexit.
Some of the 21 former Tory MPs who were kicked out of the party by Boris Johnson said they would back his Brexit deal ā provided the amendment was voted through first.
Sir Oliver’s plan appears to suggest many MPs still don’t trust the hardcore Eurosceptics not to run down the clock to a No Deal exit.
Former chancellor Philip Hammond, ex-justice secretary David Gauke and former work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd all indicated they would back the amendment, along with leading Remainers Labour’s Hilary Benn, Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts.
Mr Hammond suggested he would vote against the Brexit deal unless the Government ruled out leaving without an agreement in December 2020.
In The Times, he wrote: ‘I haven’t come this far seeking to avoid No Deal in 2019 to be duped into voting for a heavily camouflaged No Deal at the end of 2020.’
Sir Nicholas Soames said he would vote in favour of the deal and that his other 20 colleagues who have had the whip removed would ‘by and large vote for it’.
Last night, No10 sources were bullish and insisted a vote could still take place today on the Prime Minister’s deal despite the amendment, but it is not yet clear what status this would have if the amendment is successful.
Sir Oliver said the purpose of his amendment was to ensure an extension to the negotiations if there were problems in passing the deal’s legislation in Parliament.
‘Basically we are supporting the deal and we are making sure there is an insurance policy to make sure there isn’t a mistake that leads to an unforeseen crashing out,’ he said.
‘We are creating a sustained insurance policy which means if something goes wrong with the legislation, then we will be sure that the country will be in the EU beyond 31 October until we have found some other way of getting out conveniently.’
However, Sir Oliver said the amendment would make it easier for Labour MPs to vote with the Government, adding: ‘They know they won’t find themselves in that crashing out position later in the month if something goes wrong in the legislation process, so I really do think it maximises the chance of the deal going through.’
Former Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin (pictured in the Commons yesterday) proposed an amendment yesterday that would withhold Parliament’s final support for the agreement until all the necessary legislation for it is approved
Story 3: Hillary Clinton Rampant Russian Delusions, Lying and Paranoia — Russia Dumped Hillary Clinton for Tulsi Gabbard As The Russian Choice For Their Candidate in 2020? — In Your Guts You Know Hillary Is Nuts — Lock Her Up —Ā Videos —Ā
Tucker: Hillary spreads vicious lies about fellow Democrats
Hillary Clinton calls Tulsi Gabbard a “favorite of the Russians”
Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are grooming a Democrat for 2020
Hillary Implies Tulsi Boosted by Russians | The View
Ingraham: Heeere’s Hillary
Hillary Clinton talks about the 2020 presidential election
Tulsi Gabbard: This is what’s so dangerous about Hillary Clinton
Russian to Conclusions: Hillary vs. Tulsi and Jill | The News & Why It Matters | Ep 397
Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are grooming a Democrat for 2020
Tulsi Gabbard fires back at Hillary Clinton’s Russian asset claim
Stein says Clinton promoting ‘unhinged conspiracy theory’
Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton “knows she can’t control me”
Max Blumenthal on why Hillary Clinton smeared Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein
Tulsi Gabbard: 9/11 inspired me to enlist in the military
Tulsi Gabbard rips CNN, NY Times for ‘smearing’ her reputation
Tucker: Not everyone in 2020 Democratic field is a lunatic
The Five 10/18/19 | The Five Fox News October 18, 2019
State Dept. finds nearly 600 violations in Clinton’s email scandal
‘You can’t control me’: Defiant Tulsi Gabbard says Hillary has ‘the blood of thousands on her hands’ and calls her the ‘queen of warmongers’ after 2016 loser accused her of being a Russian asset ready to run as an independent candidate
Tulsi Gabbard bashed Hillary Clinton during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Friday
She said the former Secretary of State is waging a smear campaign against her because ‘she knows she can’t control me’
It comes on the heels of Clinton claiming the Russians were ‘grooming’ a Democratic presidential contender to be a third-party spoiler candidateĀ
‘They’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,’ Clinton saidĀ
In response, Gabbard tweeted that Clinton was ‘the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption’
On her appearanceĀ on Tucker Carlson, Gabbard alsoĀ insistedĀ that Clinton has blood on her hands for ‘championing’ the Iraq War
Clinton did not mention Gabbard by name but the Hawaii representative has been accused of being a ‘Russian asset’
Gabbard, in Tuesday’s debate, said that allegation was ‘completely despicable’
Story 1: United States Negotiates A 5 Day Cease Fire With Turkey and 20 Mile Buffer Zone — Videos
Trump touts ‘incredible’ ceasefire deal with Turkey
Mike Pence: Turkey Will Hold Ceasefire in Syria for 120 Hours – FULL ANNOUNCEMENT
Vice President Pence announces Syria ceasefire
Turkey agrees to Syria ceasefire: Vice President Mike Pence l ABC News
Ceasefire Reportedly Reached Between Turkey And Syria
Trump on ceasefire in Syria: It is a great day for civilization
The Five’ reacts to Trump and Pelosi trading ‘meltdown’ insults
Donald Trump hails five-day ceasefire deal in Syria as ‘a great day for civilization’ and boasts of ‘incredible outcome’ claiming ‘great leader’ Erdogan and the Kurds are happy – but Turkey hits back that they have only agreed to a PAUSE
Vice President Mike Pence announced the United States and Turkey have reached a deal to suspend Ankara’s operations in northern Syria for five days
‘It’s really a great day for civilization,’ Trump said of the agreementĀ
Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spent more than four hours meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in order to get a deal
Ceasefire will reportedly last for 120 hours to allow a withdrawalĀ
Turkey will also get a 20 mile buffer on its border that Kurds much avoidĀ
Kurds were not part of the negotiations but Pence said they signed onĀ
‘They couldn’t get it without a little rough love,’ Trump said of the agreement. ‘This is an incredible outcome’
But Turkish officials downplayed agreement and said it’s ‘not a ceasefire’Ā
PUBLISHED:Ā 13:32 EDT, 17 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 17:02 EDT, 17 October 2019
Donald Trump on Thursday hailed an agreement between the United States and Turkey for a five-day cease fire in Syria as a ‘great day for civilization’ as Turkish officials down played the outcome of the deal.Ā
‘A great day for the Kurds. It’s really a great day for civilization. It’s a great day for civilization,’ Trump said.
Vice President Mike Pence announced the United States and Turkey reached a deal to suspend Ankara’s operations in northern Syria for five days to allow Kurds time to withdraw to a ‘safe zone’ as part of a cease-fire agreement.
‘The United States and Turkey have agreed to a cease-fire in Syria,’ Pence announced at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara after protracted negotiations with the Turkish government.
Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spent more than four hours meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other officials in order to get a deal in a mission that had long odds with several Trump administration officials worried they wouldn’t get an agreement.
The deal establishes a 20-mile buffer zone on the Turkish border that Kurds would have to avoid – a move that essentially gives Turkey a portion of Syria to control.
Trump praised his team’s work and touted his own role in the matter.
‘They couldn’t get it without a little rough love,’ Trump said in Texas after the deal was announced. The president had threatened Erdogan about the deal, saying he would destroy the Turkish economy with sanctions if he didn’t sign on. ‘This is an incredible outcome.’
But Turkish officials down played the agreement, saying they agreed to suspend operations to let the Kurds withdraw and emphasized it was ‘not a ceasefire.’
‘We will suspend the Peace Spring operation for 120 hours for the PKK/YPG to withdraw. This is not a ceasefire,’ Turkish Foreign Minister MevlĆ¼t ĆavuÅoÄlu said.
Vice President Mike Pence announced the United States and Turkey have reached a deal to suspend Ankara’s operations in northern Syria for five day
President Donald Trump said the deal would not have gotten done without ‘tough love’
Turkey-backed Syrian rebel fighters gesture as they stand at a back of a truck in the border town of Tal Abyad, Syria
Trump infuriated members of both political parties – including some of his strongest Republican allies – when he announced earlier this month he was withdrawing U.S. troops from Northern Syria.
He was accused of abandoning the Kurds, who are U.S. allies in the region, and ceding control of the area to Russia.
A week of criticism from Capitol Hill compounded on Wednesday into a White House meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers where Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of having a ‘serious meltdown’ when talking about the issue.
But the president gloried in the agreement on Thursday, callingĀ Erdogan a ‘hell of a leader.’
Vice President Pence outlined the details of the agreement, saying Turkey agreedĀ five-day cease fire in order to let Kurds get out of the ‘safe zone’ and Turkey will have a buffer zone around its border that the Kurds will avoid.
‘Once that is completed, Turkey has agreed to a permanent ceasefire,’ the vice president said.
And he said that Kurdish fighters would honor the deal even as the Kurdish were not part of the negotiations.
‘We have repeated assurances from them that they will be going out,’ he said.
The deal includes a Kurdish withdrawal from a security zone roughly 20 miles south of the Turkish border, which Pence said the Kurds will comply with.
‘Our administration has already been in contact with Syria defense forces and we’ve already begun to facilitate their safe withdrawal from the nearly 20-mile-wide safe zone area south of the Turkish border in Syria,’ Pence noted.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan meets with Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (3rd R), National Security Adviser Robert C. O’Brien (2nd R) and the American Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey (not pictured)
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said the agreement was ‘not a cease fire’
Smoke and fire in the town of Ras al-Ain in Syria as Turkish forces gain ground there
‘We recognize the importance and value of a safe zone to create a buffer between Syria proper and the Kurdish population and the TurkishĀ border,’ he said.
Additionally, the U.S. agreed to lift the economic sanctions it imposed on Turkey after the country sent troops into northern Syria once American forces had withdrawn.
The withdrawal of U.S. troops resulted in the Turkish military going ahead with a planned invasion into northeastern Syria, where Kurdish fighters had helped American forces in fighting what was left of ISIS.
‘The United States will not impose any further sanctions on Turkey,’ Pence announced.
‘And once a permanent cease fire is in effect, the president has agreed to withdraw the economic sanctions that were imposed this last Monday,’ he added.
But the agreement, however, gives Turkey what it wanted with its military incursion Additionally, the country is under no obligation to withdraw its troops under the agreement.
And the sanctions relief means the country will suffer no economic penalty from its military operation.
Trump, however, argued the deal will save lives and praised Turkey for signing it.
‘They’re not going to have toĀ kill millions of people, andĀ millions of people aren’t going to have to kill them,’ he said.
The president acknowledged the opposition to his decision to withdraw U.S. troops , including criticism he faced in his party from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and his longtime ally Sen. Lindsey Graham.
‘This outcome is something they’ve been trying to get for ten years, everybody, and they couldn’t get it. Other administrations, and they never would have been able to get it unless you went somewhat unconventional. I guess I’m an unconventional person. I took a lot of heat from a lot of people even some of the people in my own party, but they were there, in the end they were there. They’re all there. Look, this is about the nation. This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats. This is about our nation,’ Trump said.
He claimed the Kurds were very happy with the outcome.
‘TheyĀ were incredibly happy with thisĀ solution.Ā This is a solution thatĀ really – well it saved theirĀ lives, frankly.Ā It saved their lives,’ he said.
But not all Republicans celebrated the president’s deal.
In a scathing speech on the Senate floor, GOP Sen. Mitt Romney slammed the agreement, saying ‘the cease-fire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally, adding insult to dishonor.’
‘The administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death and casualty. Their homes have been burned and their families have been torn apart,’ he added.
‘What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history,’ he said.
Republican Senator Mitt Romney slammed Trump’s deal with Turkey as a ‘bloodstain’ on America
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan receives Vice President Mike Pence at Presidential Complex in Ankara
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday he wants ‘something even stronger’ than the House resolution condemning Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria as Republicans have opposed the president’s move
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump ally, called for even greater sanctions on Turkey
Turkish-backed Syrian fighters drive down a street in the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad
There were fears among some Trump administration officials that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence would not be able to get a deal with Turkey
Graham said in a statement on Thursday he had a phone call with Trump, who spoke to him from Air Force One as he was in route to Dallas, Texas, after the deal was done.
‘Sounds like we may have made real progress regarding a cease-fire and hopefully sustainable solutions to prevent the reemergence of ISIS, the abandonment of our ally, the Kurds, and other strategic interests of the United States, like the containment of Iran,’ Graham said.
‘I stand ready to continue working with the President to build upon this breakthrough. I also stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to ensure this incursion by Turkey into northeastern Syria ends, hopefully, in a win-win fashion,’ he said. ‘Turkey has legitimate national security concerns within Syria but they cannot be met by invasion and force of arms.’
But there are still signs of dissension among the Republican ranks.
McConnell said Thursday he wants ‘something even stronger’ in the Senate than a House’s resolution that condemned Trump’s decision to with draw U.S. troops from Syria.
‘I believe it’s important that we make a strong forward-looking strategic statement. For that reason my preference would be for something even stronger than the resolution that the House passed yesterday which has some serious weaknesses,’ McConnell said from the Senate floor.
But nothing was raining on Trump’s parade.
Following the news of the deal, Trump tweeted: ‘Great news out of Turkey. News Conference shortly with @VP and @SecPompeo . Thank you to @RTErdogan . Millions of lives will be saved!’
Vice President Mike Pence met with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan at the Presidential Palace in Ankara Thursday for more than four hours
President Trump tweeted the deal was ‘great news’
A Syrian woman and a girl, who were displaced by the Turkish military operation in northeastern Syria, wait to receive a tent and other aid supplies at the Bardarash refugee camp, north of Mosul, Iraq
The president went on to tweet: ‘This deal could NEVER have been made 3 days ago. There needed to be some ‘tough’ love in order to get it done. Great for everybody. Proud of all!’
He added that millions of lives will be saved.
‘This is a great day for civilization. I am proud of the United States for sticking by me in following a necessary, but somewhat unconventional, path. People have been trying to make this ‘Deal’ for many years. Millions of lives will be saved. Congratulations to ALL!,’ the president wrote.
The vice president touched down in Ankara earlier Thursday alongside Pompeo and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien as they tried to stop the Syrian civil war descending into a bloody new phase.
His mission came a day after the White House released a letter Trump sent toĀ Erdogan, urging him to make a deal.
‘You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering people,’ Trump wrote, adding: ‘Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later.’
The outlook for any deal had appeared bleak after Erdogan briefly toyed with the idea of refusing to meet with Pence at all.
He later relented, but repeatedly insisted he will not stop his assault on the Kurds – America’s former allies in Syria – until he has driven them away from his border.
Trump praised Erdogan for signing on to the agreement.
‘He’s a hell of a leader. And he’s a tough man.Ā He’s a strong man. And he did the right thing, and I really appreciate it, and I will appreciate it in the future,’ he said Thursday.
He said – with the deal in place – Erdogan will likely make his visit to the White House next month.
‘That would be very much open. I would say, yeah, he would come. He did a terrific thing. He’s a leader. He had to make a decision. A lot of people wouldn’t have made that decision because they don’t know. They ultimately would have made it, but what he did was very smart and it was great for the people of Turkey, and they’re lucky it was him making the decision, I will tell you that,’ he said.
Trump told reporters during a press conference Wednesday that he hadn’t given Erdogan ‘a green light’ to invade northern Syria, and claimed releasing ‘a very powerful letter’ would dispel misconceptions about the impact of his troop withdrawal from Syria days.
‘If anybody saw the letter, which can be released very easily if you’d like ā I could certainly release it,’ he said.
‘But I wrote a letter right after that conversation ā a very powerful letter. There was never given a green light.’
Vice President Mike Pence carries details of the agreement as he prepares to announce the deal
Syrian National Army (SNA) members hang a Syrian National Army flag as they continue operations against the PKK, listed as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S. and the EU, and the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, which Turkey regards as a terror group, within Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring
Correspondence: The letter reveals how Trump asked Erdogan not to invade northern Syria
The letter appears to support the president’s contention that he didn’t give Erdogan his approval for the military campaign.
‘Let’s work out a good deal!’ he wrote. ‘You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people, and I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economyāand I will.’
The president pledged during the 2016 campaign to disentangle America’s military from what he called ‘forever wars’ ā longstanding conflicts that the Pentagon has stabilized, often with thousands, or tens of thousands, of servicemen and women.
He used that pledge to justify his withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria.
Trump’s allies in his own party, including Lindsey Graham, turned on him with that decision.
Graham, who has been a Trump ally in fending off theĀ RussiaĀ probe, blasted the president for abandoning Kurdish allies in Syria in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, where evangelical leaders have been voicing concern about the risk to minorities including Christians in the region.
‘I will do anything I can to help him, but I will also become President Trump’s worst nightmare,’ Graham vowed. ‘I will not sit along the sidelines and watch a good ally, the Kurds, be slaughtered by Turkey.’
Graham cautioned: ‘This is a defining moment for President Trump. He needs to up his game.’
Trump responded by claiming the Kurds are not ‘angels.’
‘Syria has a relationship with the Kurds ā who by the way are not angels,’ Trump told reporters at the White House Wednesday.
‘Who is an angel? There aren’t too many around. But Syria has a relationship with the Kurds. So they’ll come in for their border. And they’ll fight,’ Trump said.
Graham on Thursday called for stricter sanctions against Turkey and introduced legislation that would target Turkish officials, end U.S. military cooperation with the NATO ally and mandate sanctions over Turkey’s purchase of a Russian S-400 missile defense system
‘Congress is going to speak with a very firm, singular voice, that we will impose sanctions in the strongest measure possible against this Turkish outrage that will lead to the re-emergence of ISIS, the destruction of an ally, the Kurds and eventually benefit to Iran to the detriment of Israel,’ he said during a press conference on Capitol Hill.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to condemn the president’s troop-withdrawal decision, where 129 Republicans joined Democrats to condemn Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria in a 354 to 60 vote.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said hours later that they walked out of a meeting with Trump at the White House when he berated them for their views on Syria.
Pelosi said she witnessed a ‘meltdown,’ with Trump telling her some ISIS fighters were communists, and ‘that must make you happy.’
The White House said in a statement that ‘[t]he President was measured, factual and decisive, while Speaker Pelosi’s decision to walk out was baffling, but not surprising.’
The statement claimed Pelosi ‘chose to storm out and get in front of the cameras to whine.’
ISTANBUL ā Turkey agreed Thursday to a cease-fire that would suspend its march into Syria and temporarily halt a week of vicious fighting with Kurdish forces, while allowing President Recep Tayyip Erdoganās government to carve out a long-coveted buffer zone far beyond its borders.
The agreement, announced by Vice President Pence after hours of negotiations, appeared to hand Turkeyās leader most of what he sought when his military launched an assault on northeastern Syria just over a week ago: the expulsion of Syrian Kurdish militias from the border and the removal of a U.S. threat to impose sanctions on Turkeyās vulnerable economy.
Pence said Turkey had agreed to pause its offensive for five days while the United States helped facilitate the withdrawal of ĀKurdish-led forces, called the ĀSyrian Democratic Forces (SDF), from a large swath of territory stretching from Turkeyās border nearly 20 miles south into Syria. After the completion of the Kurdish withdrawal, Turkeyās military operation, which began Oct. 9, would be āhalted entirely,ā Pence said.
The White House agreed to refrain from imposing any new economic sanctions on Turkey and to withdraw sanctions that were imposed earlier this week once āa permanent cease-fire was in effect,ā Pence said.
Pence, who negotiated with the Turkish leader at the presidential palace in Ankara, portrayed the agreement as a hard-won victory and credited President Trumpās leadership and Turkeyās friendship for its success. The deal delivered Erdogan concessions he had been unable to win during years of negotiations with the United States and vindicated, in some way, his decision to pursue military action instead.
āItās a great day for the United States, itās a great day for Turkey,ā Trump told reporters in Texas after Penceās announcement. āA great day for the Kurds, itās a great day for civilization,ā he added.
Mazloum Kobane Abdi, the commander of the SDF, said in an interview on a Kurdish television channel that āwe accepted this agreement, and we will do whatever it takes to make it work.ā But the text of the agreement was ājust the beginning,ā he said, adding that āthe Turkish occupation will not continue.ā
Penceās whirlwind trip to Turkey came just a week after the start of a military operation that had prompted a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, led to dire warnings about the resurgence of the Islamic State militant group and abruptly caused a humanitarian crisis. Tens of thousands of people were uprooted from their homes. Dozens were killed in battles, on both sides of the border.
The Trump administration was criticized, even by some of its Republican allies, for abandoning the Syrian Kurdish militias, which partnered with the U.S. military to fight the Islamic State. Trumpās erratic statements about the conflict seemed to make matters worse: On Wednesday, he distanced himself from the conflict altogether, saying the fight between Turkey and the Kurds was āover land that has nothing to do with us.ā
As Pence met with Erdogan on Thursday, the two men refused to smile, even a little, as their meeting got underway, as if to communicate failure before their negotiation had begun.
But afterward, a Turkish official briefed by participants in the talks said the Turkish side was surprised and relieved at how easy the negotiations were. āWe got everything we wanted,ā said the official, an adviser to the Foreign Ministry who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy.
Irritated by White House threats over the past week, Erdogan had prepared for a confrontational meeting, but the mood softened when it became clear the U.S. officials were asking only for what the Turks regarded as token concessions. In return for a brief pause in fighting, there would be no U.S. sanctions and no requirement for a Turkish withdrawal.
The request for a temporary cease-fire seemed to be āface-saving, for the U.S. side,ā the official said. āIt was as easy a negotiation as weāve ever had,ā the official said.
The agreement ā aimed at separating hardened foes in a volatile area of Syria ā faces obvious obstacles. The text raised a variety of pressing questions, including whether the combatants would honor their commitments.
But while it averted, at least temporarily, the most serious dispute between Turkey and the United States in years, the agreement faced immediate criticism, including from U.S. lawmakers who earlier in the day had introduced sanctions legislation on their own.
Trumpās actions in Syria had infuriated Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans in the House voted earlier this week in large numbers to rebuke the White House for the troop withdrawal. On Thursday, some of Trumpās most vocal critics on Syria met the news of the cease-fire with open skepticism.
In a floor speech, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) pressed the administration to explain the United Statesā future role in the region, the fate of the Kurds and why, in Romneyās view, Turkey will face no consequences after its incursion into Syria
āThe announcement today is being portrayed as a victory. It is far from a victory,ā Romney said. āSerious questions remain about how the decision was reached precipitously to withdraw from Syria and why that decision was reached.ā
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), a co-sponsor of the bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), called the agreement āa capitulation to Turkey at the expense of our Kurdish allies.ā
āThe agreement lets Turkey off the hook for slaughtering innocent civilians and the Kurdish troops who fought alongside American soldiers against ISIS,ā an acronym for the Islamic State, Hassan said in a statement. āMoreover, it does nothing to recapture the hundreds of ISIS soldiers who have already escaped from Kurdish-held prisons.ā
Spokesmen for Graham and Van Hollen said they would continue to press the sanctions legislation.
Robert Malley, who served as a senior White House official during the Obama administration and is now president of the International Crisis Group, described the agreement as āa capitulation dressed up as a win.ā
He said the Trump administrationās announcement validated the Turkish objective in Syria, āputting a gloss on it and claiming it was a deal reached through negotiations.ā Malley said the terms appeared so ambiguous that they made possible renewed violence between Turkey and the Kurds.
The cease-fire agreement does not mention any Turkish withdrawal from Syria, where Turkish forces and their Syrian rebel allies have moved about 20 miles across the border over a broad width of territory. Although it says a āsafe zoneā will be established, the agreement also notes that Turkeyās military will take the lead in patrolling it.
Turkey has described the offensive as a counterterrorism operation directed at militants affiliated with the Kurdistan Workersā Party, or PKK, which has fought an insurgency inside Turkey for decades.
Just weeks before the incursion, Turkey and the United States had agreed after months of negotiations to jointly patrol a zone that would extend no farther than 8.6 miles into Syria. Turkeyās unhappiness with that agreement, both in terms of the amount of Syrian territory it covered and the extent of Turkish control, was one precipitating factor in the decision to invade.
The deal reached Thursday also does not address Turkish-backed Syrian militias, which have been the vanguard of the invasion. U.S. officials consider those fighters to be extremists, and they have been held responsible by international human rights organizations for numerous violations since they entered Syria, including the extrajudicial killing of Kurdish fighters and civilians. It remained unclear whether Turkey had agreed to withdraw those militias or would be able to do so.
Turkey ā where nearly 4 million Syrians have sought refuge during eight years of civil war in their homeland ā has also said it intends to resettle 1 million to 2 million Syrian refugees in the buffer zone.
International law prohibits returning refugees to their native land without their permission, and it allows the initial return only of those who originally came from that area. U.S. officials have said that those who have fled over the years from the border region, both Kurds and non-Kurds, amount only to several hundred thousand.
DeYoung and Kim reported from Washington. Sarah Dadouch and Asser Khatab in Beirut and Colby Itkowitz, Missy Ryan, Joby Warrick and Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this report.
Story 2: Senate Fails To Override Trump’s VetoĀ of Legislation Approved by the Senate and House of Representatives to Kill His Border Emergency — Videos
The Senate Fails to Overcome Trump’s Veto on Border Wall
Senate won’t override Trump’s declaration veto
Trump uses veto power to kill bill that would block his border wall emergency
Senate Fails to Override Trumpās Veto, Keeping Border Emergency in Place
The vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override President Trumpās veto, allowing him to continue circumventing Congress to fund the border wall.
WASHINGTON ā The Senate on Thursday failed to overturn President Trumpās veto of a resolution that would have terminated the national emergency he declared at the southwestern border. The defeat allows Mr. Trump to continue to defy Congress and divert federal funds to the construction of a border wall, his signature campaign promise.
The override attempt, the second such effort this year, failed when it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to nullify a veto. But the 53-to-36 vote reflected concern among lawmakers in both parties about protecting Congressās power to allocate federal funds and opposition to Mr. Trumpās plans to transfer billions of dollars in military construction money to build the border barrier.
Ten Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the measure.
Mr. TrumpĀ issued the vetoĀ Tuesday night, exactly seven months after using his first presidential veto to turn back a nearly identical resolution. Under the law, Congress can vote on such legislation every six months, and Democrats have used every opportunity to force Republicans to go on the record and choose whether to break with Mr. Trump, defending their prerogatives as legislators, or side with him.
The president declared the national emergency in February, after Democrats and Republicans in Congress rejected his efforts to secure $5 billion for the border wall, including during a 35-day government shutdown in which he repeatedly refused to accept any funding measure that failed to fund the edifice. The declaration, which Democrats have challenged in court, was Mr. Trumpās attempt to unilaterally seize money to pay for it anyway.
The failed attempt to overcome Mr. Trumpās veto comes as lawmakers are grappling with how to designate funds for the administrationās immigration policies, including whether to devote more money to the border wall and replace the funds originally intended for military construction.
Government funds for all agencies will now run out on Nov. 21 after a short-term spending bill passed last month expires and lawmakers are eager to avoid another government shutdown over Mr. Trumpās wall.
But the Senate has yet to approve any of the dozen necessary spending bills, which will need to be reconciled with the Houseās versions before Mr. Trump can sign the bills into law.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said on Thursday that the Senate would vote on at least one package of appropriations bills next week.
āCongress has fallen badly behind schedule on appropriations,ā Mr. McConnell said. āWe need to get moving. The country is watching. Itās time to make progress.ā
Lawmakers are eager to advance the bills.
āIām hoping we can move forward,ā Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters.
Some of the more contentious bills, including the measure that would fund the Department of Homeland Security, likely face a more contentious path to the presidentās desk. Senate Republicans have included $5 billion for Mr. Trumpās wall in that bill while Democrats in both chambers have vowed to vote against any money for the wall.
While White House officials struck a budget agreement with congressional leadership earlier this year, it only set an outline for overall funding levels for military and domestic spending. In recent weeks, both chambers have exchanged offers on how to broadly divide the money among legislation dealing with domestic programs before hammering out the specifics of each of the bills.
Republicans have also objected to efforts from their Democratic counterparts to limit the presidentās ability to again transfer money allocated to other agencies to the border wall, arguing that such language would be a violation of the budget agreement.
āI donāt want to say November 21 is a long time, but lots of stuff can happen between now and then,ā said Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, who leads the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security.
āMy billās the problem,ā she added.
If lawmakers do not resolve the 12 spending bills before Thanksgiving, when the stopgap spending bill expires, a lapse in funding or efforts to pass another short term spending bill could potentially collide with an impeachment trial, which leaders believe could unfold in December.
PUBLISHED:Ā 19:03 EDT, 17 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 19:03 EDT, 17 October 2019
WASHINGTON, Oct 17 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration, which he says allows him to redirect federal funds to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, will stay in effect after the U.S. Senate on Thursday failed to override his veto of legislation terminating the executive action.
The Senate voted 53-36 on whether to override the veto that Trump issued on Tuesday of legislation approved by the Senate and House of Representatives to kill his controversial border emergency.
That was well below the two-thirds majority needed in the 100-member chamber to overturn a presidential veto.
This marked the second time since February, when Trump issued the emergency declaration, that Congress failed to override his veto.
Ten Senate Republicans joined with 43 Senate Democrats in the failed veto override attempt.
Trump made the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border a central promise of his 2016 presidential campaign to stop the flow of people without immigration documents from coming into the United States.
At the time he insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall, an idea the Mexican government never embraced.
Having failed to build the wall at Mexico’s expense, Trump waged several failed attempts to get the U.S. Congress to provide money for what would cost taxpayers an estimated $25 billion or more for a wall.
As a result, he used his executive powers to shift money from the military budget, including appropriated funds for housing, schools and childcare for soldiers and their families.
Democrats have maintained that the action is illegal as Congress has the constitutional authority to decide how federal funds are spent.
Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress argue that there are more effective, less expensive ways of controlling the southern border, where large numbers of immigrants from troubled Central American countries and elsewhere arrive each year.
“My dear DOE family, I’ve said many times that I have the coolest job in the world and a big reason for that has been you, the men and women, who serve alongside me at one of the most innovative places on earth, the Department of Energy. You know, from my first day on the job in March of 2017, you welcomed me with open arms even though you probably didnāt know what to expect from this born-and-bred Texan who had just arrived in Washington, D.C.
But since that time, you and I have worked diligently to advance our DOE mission. And the great thing is, we succeeded and we continue to push the boundaries of what is possible each and every day. You know, some people wake up every day, and they wonder if they’re making a difference. The men and women who work at this Department do not have to worry about that ā you are literally changing the world.
So, it’s with profound emotion and gratitude that I am announcing my resignation effective later this year as your Energy Secretary.
There is much work to be done in these upcoming weeks, and I remain fully committed to accomplishing the goals that I set out to accomplish at the beginning of my tenure. And then, I will return to my favorite place in the world, Texas, but I’ll treasure the memories of what weāve accomplished together.
During my time here at DOE, we pursued a truly āall-of-the-aboveā strategy. We deployed all of our fuels from renewables to fossil fuels to nuclear energy. We led the world in producing oil and gas and in reducing energy-related carbon emissions at the same time. We achieved the magnificent goal of energy independence. We became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in more than 60 years, offering freedom to our friends and allies from energy coercion by some powerful adversaries out there. And we’re ready to export our energy technology to deliver electricity to more than one billion human beings mired in energy poverty. We strengthened our national security by bolstering our nuclear security. We cleaned up numerous sites as we tackled Americaās post-Cold War environmental legacy. We stood up our CESER office to deal with threats to the reliable delivery of electricity. We created an office of Artificial Intelligence to coordinate the amazing work that we’re doing in this game-changing arena.
I’ve been blown away by the amazing work done at what I call the Nationās crown jewels, our 17 National Labs. I’ve had the opportunity to visit all of them. In my travels abroad, people everywhere wanted to know about this Department, because our footprint and impact is global. And that is a testament to each and every one of you today.
I thank President Trump for giving me the opportunity of a lifetime. I am so glad that I said āyes.ā And I thank all of you my colleagues, my friends, my family for making that opportunity a grand success. May God bless you as you continue to pursue DOEās great calling and mission. And may God continue to bless this great Country of America.” ā Secretary of Energy Rick Perry
US Energy Secretary Rick Perry on why he decided to step down
Watch CNBC’s full interview with outgoing US Energy Secretary Rick Perry
Energy Secretary Rick Perry to resign amid impeachment inquiry
Rick Perry TRASHES Trump Over Ukraine Call
Rick Perry says he did push Ukraine talks on Trump
Trump says Energy Secretary Rick Perry asked him to call Ukrainian president
Finding Rick Perry: The Missing Secretary Of Energy
Ukraine’s natural gas issues are hard to resolve amid tensions with Russia
Russia Imposes Natural Gas Hike on Ukraine
Apr 2, 2014
Rick Perry QUITS as Energy Secretary 24 hours after revealing Donald Trump told him to talk to Rudy Giuliani about ‘corruption’ in Ukraine
Rick Perry will be stepping down from his position as Trump’s Energy secretary
He sent a written notificationĀ to the president of his impending departure while Donald Trump was traveling on Air Force One ThursdayĀ
Just 10 days ago, Perry denied that he would be departing the administration in the near futureĀ
Perry said Trump told him this past spring to ‘talk to Rudy’ Giuliani about his concerns regarding Ukrainian corruptionĀ
Perry, who has acted as a liaisonĀ between Trump and his new Ukrainian counterpart, was attempting to facilitate a meeting betweenĀ the twoĀ
Trump wouldn’tĀ agree to the sit down until Giuliani’sĀ concernsĀ were addressed
Perry said Joe Biden was never brought up duringĀ his talks with GiulianiĀ
PUBLISHED:Ā 16:39 EDT, 17 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED: 19:35 EDT, 17 October 2019
Rick Perry formally informed Donald Trump Thursday that he would soon be stepping down from his post as Energy secretary.
He sent a written notification to the president as Trump was traveling aboard Air Force One, two people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg.
Trump confirmed Perry’s departure and said he was planning to announce the move at his rally Thursday night in Dallas, Texas.
‘We already have his replacement. Rick has done a fantastic job. But it was time,’ Trump told reporters in Texas, adding that his departure would come ‘at the end of the year.’
The president said that he has already has picked Perry’s replacement and will be announcing the new Energy secretary shortly.
‘We have the man that we’re going ā in this case it’s a man ā that we’re going to be putting in Rick’s place. We’ll be announcing it very shortly,’ he said.
Trump said he wasn’t surprised by Perry’s departure as the Energy secretary had informed him months ago that he was planning to leave the administration to pursue something else.
‘I knew six months ago. He told me at the end of the year he’d like to go and he’s got some ideas about doing something else. He’s a terrific guy,’ Trump lauded Perry.
‘Rick and I have been talking for six months. In fact I thought he might go a bit sooner. But he’s got some very big plans. He’s going to be very successful. We have his successor we’ll announce it pretty soon,’ he continued.
Rick Perry said Donald Trump told him to ‘talk to Rudy’ Giuliani about his concerns regarding Ukrainian corruption before he would agree to a sit down with his new counterpart
Ā The news come just 10 days after Perry, who has been with Trump since March 2017, denied that he was planning to resign his position in the immediate future.
Trump denied that Perry’s replacement would be Texas Governor Greg Abbott or Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy.
Perry has found himself at the center of the Ukraine scandal engulfing the presidency after he became one of the top liaisons between Trump and his new Ukrainian counterpart.
The former Texas governor announced earlier this month he was staying with the administration despite the controversy, although he did not rule out leaving at a later date.
‘They’ve been writing the story for at least nine months now,’ he said at the time of the media and his rumored departure. ‘One of these days they will probably get it right, but it’s not today, it’s not tomorrow, it’s not next month,’ Perry said while traveling in Lithuania.
Politico had reported last week that he was planning to resign at the end of November, citing three anonymous sources.
His departure will add to the extensive and ever-growing list of Trump administration officials who have left the White House.
Perry revealed in an interview published Wednesday night that he was directed by Trump to approach Rudy Giuliani to address the president’s concerns about corruption in Ukraine.
He toldĀ The Wall Street JournalĀ that he contacted Giuliani in the spring to help clear the way for a meeting between the president and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart.
Although Perry admitted that during his phone call earlier this year Giuliani outlined several potential instances of interference by Ukraine in the 2016 presidential elections, he said the president’s personal attorney never brought upĀ Joe BidenĀ or his family.
He also said he didn’t hear Trump, any of his appointees or the Ukrainian government ever mention probing the former vice president and his son, Hunter Biden’s business dealings there.
‘As I recall the conversation, he said, ‘Look, the president is really concerned that there are people in Ukraine that tried to beat him during this presidential election,’ Perry said. ”He thinks they’re corrupt andā¦that there are still people over there engaged that are absolutely corrupt.”
Perry said Giuliani didn’t make any explicit demands on the call.
‘Rudy didn’t say they gotta do X, Y and Z,’ Perry continued in his interview. ‘He just said, ‘You want to know why he ain’t comfortable about letting this guy come in? Here’s the reason.’
The House opened an impeachment inquiry into the president following revelations of a July 25 phone call where Trump urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up dirt on his political rival.
Democrats allege the president set a quid pro quo in freezing millions in military aid in exchange for the Ukrainian regime’s investigation into the Bidens.
Perry’s talks and coordination with Giuliani show the widespread reach of the president’s attorney’s involvement in foreign policy. Giuliani is currently being investigation for potential foreign lobbying violations.
Giuliani confirmed his call with Perry and said he was telling the president’s energy secretary to be careful in dealing with Zelensky, who took office in May.
‘Everything I said there I probably said on television 50 times,’ Giuliani told the Journal.
The former New York City Republican mayor has accused Ukraine, under then-President Petro Poroshenko, of interfering in the U.S. elections on Hillary Clinton’s behalf.
Since Zelensky was elected, U.S. officials have been attempting to facilitate a meeting between and his new Ukrainian counterpart.
Perry and Giuliani’s call followed a White House meeting, which included Perry and then-U.S. envoy for Ukraine negotiations Kurt Volker, who resigned last month after revelations of Trump’s call with Zelensky.
In the meeting, Trump’s advisers urged him to meet with Zelensky, but people familiar with the matter said the president told them they needed to resolve Giuliani’s concerns before he would agree to the meeting.
‘Visit with Rudy,’ Perry said the president told him at the time.
Perry has been one of the administration’s top liaisons with the new Ukrainian president, which has put him under intense scrutiny as the president faces impeachment proceedings into whether he abused his power as president to dig up dirt on Biden.
Trump claims his call with Zelensky this summer was ‘perfect,’ and insists it was an attempt to help weed out corruption from the European nation. He also claims he has a duty, as president, to stop corruption, including from the Bidens.
Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, is being investigated in relation to his role in U.S.-Ukraine relations ā especially his claims of corruption and election interference by the previous administration there
Hunter Biden accepted a board position with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings in 2014 ā while his father was still serving as Obama’s vice president. He reportedly was paid $50,000 per month in his post at Burisma.
The attorney and lobbyist stepped down from Burisma’s board earlier this year and also announced over the weekend he was leaving his position on the board of a Chinese-backed equity firm where he made millions.
Perry said Trump has dismissed his requests to meet with Zelensky in an effort to show U.S. support for the new administration ā which Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who is leading the impeachment inquiry, said is another potential of a quid pro quo.
Schiff said if Trump were to set an investigation into the Bidens as a condition for meeting with Zelensky, it could be another instance of him using his presidency to attempt to better his chances in 2020.
Perry revealed that Giuliani was also in contact with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Volker and U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.
Rick Perry, the energy secretary who has drawn scrutiny for his role in the controversy surrounding President Trumpās efforts to push Ukraine officials to investigate the son of a political rival, told the president on Thursday that he would resign from the cabinet.
The Perry resignation had been anticipated for several weeks, even before the news emerged of his involvement in efforts to pressure the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate a company that had worked with Hunter Biden, the younger son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
In the ensuing weeks, Mr. Perry has been drawn deeper into the questions around the pressure campaign on Mr. Zelensky, which has spurred an impeachment inquiry that threatens to engulf Mr. Trumpās presidency.
Mr. PerryĀ told The Wall Street JournalĀ in an interview published on Wednesday night that he was in contact with Mr. Trumpās personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani about Ukraine-related matters at the direction of Mr. Trump.
Mr. Perry has been instrumental in supporting what President Trump has called a policy of American āenergy dominance,ā which includes increasing the exports of United States fossil fuels to Ukraine and elsewhere.
As energy secretary, Mr. Perry oversaw a sharp increase in the production of fossil fuels, particularly liquefied natural gas, and promoted it with a patriotic fervor ā even dubbing the fossil fuel āfreedom gasā and likening its export to Europe to the United States efforts to liberate the continent during World War II.
āThe United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European continent,ā Mr. Perry told reporters in Brussels in May, according toĀ Euractiv.com. āAnd rather than in the form of young American soldiers,ā Mr. Perry said, āitās in the form of liquefied natural gas.ā
Mr. Perry also led a failed effort to engineer aĀ federal bailout for struggling coal and nuclear power plants. Though the plan ultimately ran afoul of White House advisers, Mr. Perry has continued to maintain that the government still has the option of keeping aging plants operating, even as he asserted that incentives might be a better path forward.
Mr. Perry may have once infamously forgotten the name of the Energy Department. But in two years leading the agency, he has overseen an almost 25 percent expansion of its budget.
A former Texas governor, Mr. Perry also avoided many of the personal scandals that had bested hisĀ counterparts at other agencies. In part because of that, those who know Mr. Perry have said at various points throughout the administration Mr. Trump has considered his energy secretary to fill other cabinet vacancies,Ā including secretary of veterans affairs.
Mr. Trump also considered Mr. Perry, 69, to become his chief of staff afterĀ John F. Kelly resigned, and more recently to take over the Department of Homeland Security afterĀ Kirstjen Nielsenās resignation, according to two people close to Mr. Perry.
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondentĀ and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trumpās advisers and their connections to Russia. Previously, she worked at Politico, The New York Post and The New York Daily News.Ā @maggieNYT
Lisa Friedman reports on climate and environmental policy in Washington. A former editor at Climatewire, she has covered nine international climate talks.Ā @LFFriedman
A Guide to Impeachment
What Impeachment Is:Ā Impeachment is charging a holder of public office with misconduct. Here are answers toĀ seven key questionsĀ about the process.
What the Accusation Is:Ā President Trump is accused of breaking the law by pressuring the president of Ukraine toĀ look into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a potential Democratic opponent in the 2020 election.Ā A second person, this one with āfirsthand knowledgeā of Mr. Trumpās dealings with Ukraine, came forward and is now protected as a whistle-blower.
What Was Said:Ā The White House releasedĀ a reconstructed transcriptĀ of Mr. Trumpās call to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
A Visual Timeline:Ā Here areĀ the key figures and datesĀ as Mr. Trump and his allies pressured Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
Why Now:Ā A whistle-blower complaint filed in August said that White House officials believed they had witnessed Mr. Trump abuse his power for political gain.Ā Here are 8 takeaways from the complaint.
How Trump Responds:Ā The president said the impeachment battle would be āa positiveā for his re-election campaign. Mr. Trump hasĀ repeatedly referredĀ to the whistle-blower as ācrookedā and condemned the news media reporting on the complaint. At the beginning of October, Mr. Trump publiclyĀ called on China to examine Mr. Biden as well.
Fantasy Island TV Show Opening Theme Season One 1978
Story 1: Democrat Debate Demolition Derby Smashing Senator Warren — Trump Again The Winner vs Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers —Ā Videos
The Last American Hero – demolition derby
Michael Enters KITT Into The Demolition Derby | Knight Rider
Tucker: 2020 Democrats turn on Warren
Ingraham: Trump wins another Democratic debate
Democrats use fourth debate to unleash attacks on Warren
Fourth Democratic debate analysis and spin room interviews
Watch Democratic Debate Highlights In Ohio
Fourth Democratic debate analysis and spin room interviews
Everything Andrew Yang Said at the Fourth Democratic Debate in OhioĀ #yanggang
Watch Most Heated Democratic Debate Highlights In Ohio
See what Democratic candidates said about impeaching Trump
Elizabeth Warren cements status as Democratic frontrunner by being focus of rivals’ attack in 2020 debate, but it’s Bernie who gets AOC and her Squad’s coveted endorsement, as all 12 candidates unite behind impeaching Trump
A dozen Democratic candidates were in Westerville, Ohio, for the fourth primary debate Tuesday night
Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage at Otterbein University just a few weeks after his heart attackĀ
He reassured the crowd of his health saying: ‘I’m healthy, I’m feeling great!’Ā
Joe Biden defended his family’s name during the debate despite scrutiny in the Ukraine scandal and his son’s international business dealings saying: ‘My son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong’Ā
Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was interviewed by ABC News Tuesday morning, where no topic was off limitsĀ
Elizabeth Warren has recently emerged as the frontrunner ā surpassing Biden in several polls this monthĀ
She is facing controversy over claims she was forced from a teaching position because she was pregnant, which critics point out she contradicted in the past
Tuesday’s debate started with a united front with all candidates calling for Trump’s impeachment
In the first hour Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota delivered an impassioned attack on Trump and called out Elizabeth Warren by questioning her Medicare for All single-payer healthcare plan
In the second hour of the debate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, both military veterans, went head to head over U.S. presence in the Middle East and Syria
Mayor Buttigieg and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke sparred over hisĀ proposed mandatory buy-backs of assault-style rifles
PUBLISHED:Ā 20:10 EDT, 15 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 10:18 EDT, 16 October 2019
Democratic presidential candidates who took the stage for the fourth presidential debate in Ohio called for Donald Trumpās impeachment for ‘selling out’ the American people ā then blasted emerging front-runner Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
But during a prime-time event where Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had to field questions about both his health and his age, it is the 78-year old Vermonter who got a jolt when it was revealed New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be endorsing his campaign at a Queens rally Saturday. Fellow squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota also endorsed Sanders but it’s unclear if she will be at Saturday’s event.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has dominated polling for months, began the debate by defending the conduct of his sonās work in Ukraine on a day Hunter Biden fielded questions during a sit-down interview on his work for a Ukrainian energy company. He said he and his son had ‘done nothing wrong’.
During the first portion of the debate, he spoke on impeachment and his son, then remained on the sidelines for long stretches while Warren, who has jumped in national and state polls, fielded attacks from rivals.
Biden went after Warren directly later in the debate when he said his political rivals didnāt measure up to his accomplishments.
‘Iām the only one on the stage whoās gotten anything really big done,’ Biden said.
Warren countered by citing her work as an architect for what became the Consumer Financial Control Board before she got elected to the Senate. āI convinced people to vote for it,ā Biden responded.
Warren parried that she was ‘deeply grateful to president Obama who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law’.
Tuesday’s Presidential Debate: (From left to right) Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pette Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, and JuliĆ”n Castro took to the debate stage Tuesday night in Westerville, Ohio hosted at Otterbein University
The calm before the storm: Tuesday’s debate started with the candidates putting on a united front in tearing into Donald Trump and backing his impeachment
Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden smiled as they took the stage Tuesday night before they called for Trump’s impeachment, with Joe Biden calling him ‘the most corrupt president in all our history’
Tuesday’s debate was moderated by The New York Times national editor Marc Lacey (left), moderator and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper (center) and moderator and CNN anchor Erin Burnett (right)
Former Vice President Joe Biden listened as Senator Elizabeth Warren slammed President Donald Trump in the first hour of the fourth Democratic primary debate on Tuesday
Sanders also pushed back and Biden for his claim at the expense of the groupās accomplishments.
‘Joe, you talked about working with Republicans and getting things done. But you know what, you also got done, and I say this as a good friend ā You got the disastrous war in Iraq done. You got a bankruptcy bill, which is hurting middle class families all over this country. You got trade agreements like NAFTA and (trade relations) with China done, which have cost us 4 million jobs,’ he said.
Warren spoke for nearly 23 minutes during the three-hour debate, with Biden getting the second-most time, but a full six minutes less, followed by Klobuchar.
The Massachusetts senator responded to a question from CNN after the debate about attacks from some rivals that her health plan would soak the middle class.
‘Yes your taxes will go up, but your overall costs will go down,’ she said.
Warren repeated her call to break up big tech companies like Facebook and Google – another of her proposals that brought her criticism from her rivals.
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang compared it to people to wanting to use the number four search engine. ‘There is a reason why no one is using Bing today,’ he quipped.
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg went after former Texas Rep. Beto OāRourke over his assault weapon buyback program, and said there was no time for ‘purity tests.’
OāRourke said the nation must not ‘be limited by the polls and the consultants and the focus groups.’
That prompted Ban angry rejoinder from Buttigieg, who shot back: ‘The problem isn’t the polls. The problems is the policy. And I don’t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal.’
Others blasted Warren for the cost of her Medicare-for-all plan.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota told her: ‘I’m sorry Elizabeth. You are making Republican talking points in this room,’ adding: ‘We owe it to the American people to tell them where we will send the invoice.’ She told Warren, ‘The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done.’
‘I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage is to obliterate private plans,’ South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg told Warren.
California Sen. Kamala Harris pushed Harris to join her demand that Twitter suspend Donald Trumpās account due to his incendiary tweets.
‘I would urge you to join me,’ she said, saying Trump used the platform to ‘intimidate witnesses, to threaten witnesses, to obstruct justice.’
Warren shot back: ‘I donāt just want to push Trump off Twitter, I want to push him out of the White House.’
Biden beams as he takes a selfie with supporters after the fourth Democratic primary debate in Ohio last night
Biden embraces Warren as he spoke to her last night following a question about their ages (left) and Biden in discussion with Sanders during a break in the primary debate (right)
Biden takes a sip from a CNN mug last night while pointing during the fourth debate between the Democrat White House hopefuls
Senators Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders shake hands during the debate, the elder Senator declared last night he was ‘feeling great’ in his first stage outing since suffering a heart attack
Sanders hugs billionaire activist Tom Steyer at the conclusion of the fourth U.S. Democratic presidential candidates
A record 12 Democratic 2020 candidates took to the debate stage in Ohio Tuesday night and immediately united in calling for Donald Trump – the man they all have been planning to run against – to be impeached with Joe Biden calling him ‘the most corrupt president in all our history.’
Meeting for the first time since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed a formal impeachment inquiry, the candidates blasted Trumpās push to have Ukraine investigate the Bidens, and accused him of self-dealing and ‘selling out’ the American people.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has jumped in the polls, fielded the first question at the fourth Democratic debate. An early caller for Trumpās impeachment, she said: ‘This president has obstructed justice and had done it repeatedly,’ Warren said.
‘Impeachment is the way that we establish that this man will not be permitted to break the law over and over without consequences,’ Warren continued.
Sanders, on stage for the first time since his heart attack, called Trump: ‘The most corrupt president in the history of this country.’
Sanders accused Trump of ‘enriching himself while using the Oval Office ā¦ in order to get dirt on a presidential candidate is beyond comprehensible.’ He called for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to ‘do the right thing and allow a free and fair trial in the Senate.’
Biden, whose son Hunterās business in Ukraine featured in Trumpās push for a probe by the Ukrainian government, called Trump ‘the most corrupt president in modern history and I think all of our history.’
The dozen candidates met in Ohio for the first time since 10 front-runners met in Houston last month. It was the largest Democratic debate in recent memory. Others split candidates into separate pools.
The intervening period featured a dramatic move among House Democrats toward opening an impeachment inquiry of President Trump, after a whistle-blower alleged the president abused his office by pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.
Billionaire Tom Steyer (left) made his debut on the debate stage Tuesday night where he slammed Donald Trump as the ‘criminal of the White House’ and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (right) claimed he is the Democratic nominee that will be the ‘president that can turn the page’
Sen. Amy Klobuchar went head to head with Elizabeth Warren over healthcare plans, as former housing secretary Julian Castro looked on during the presidential debate hosted at Otterbein University
Sen. Kamala Harris (left) defended women’s health and rights when she spoke at the podium Tuesday night and in a poignant moment New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (right) warned his fellow Democratic candidates against ‘tearing each other down because we have a different plan’
Sen Klobuchar dug into Elizabeth Warren saying she hasn’t specified how she’ll finance Medicare for All single-payer health care plan under her presidency
Biden delivered yet another defense of his son, on a day when Hunter Biden told ABC he would forego foreign work if his father wins the presidency, acknowledged some responsibility for the appearance of favoritism, and admitted he got jobs due to his fatherās name.
‘My son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. I carried out the policy of the United States in rooting out corruption in Ukraine,’ Joe Biden said when pressed on the issue ā while seeking to steer clear of details.
‘My sonās statement speaks for itself what I think is important is we focus on why itās so important to remove this man from office,’ Biden said. ‘Rudy Giuliani, the president and his thugs, have already proven that they are in fact flat lying,’ Biden intoned, referencing Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who pushed Ukraine to probe the Bidens.
Biden argued the focus should be on Trump.
‘This president on three occasions, three occasions has invited foreign governments and heads of government to get engaged in trying to alter our elections. The fact is that it is outrageous. Rudy Giuliani, the president and his thugs have already proven that they, in fact, are flat lying. What we have to do now is focus on Donald Trump. He doesn’t want me to be the candidate. He is going after me because he knows if I get the nomination, I will beat him like a drum,’ he said.Ā Trump did focus attacks on as the poll leader throughout the summer while officials were deliberating on how to push Ukraine.
His comments came after Biden adviser Anita Dunn told DailyMail.com of Hunterās performance in an interview designed to move past the issue: ‘He answered all the questions.’
Sen. Kamala Harris of California, a former prosecutor, said Trump ‘has committed crimes in plain sight.’ She said Trump had been ‘selling out the American people.’
‘On this issue with Ukraine heās been selling out democracy,’ Harris said, standing by her statement that she has seen enough evidence to vote to impeach.
‘I know a confession when I see it,’ she said.
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker said he feels as much ‘outrage’ as fellow Democrats. But he cautioned: ‘This has got to be about patriotism and not partisanship.’
Speaking on impeachment, Democratic presidential hopeful Representative for Hawaii Tulsi Gabbard (left, alongside Tom Steyer) said: ‘If impeachment is driven by these hyper-partisan interests, it will only further divide an already terribly divided country’
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, billionaire Tom Steyer and Sen. Cory Booker pictured from left to right on the debate stage
At the top of the debate the candidates squabbled over health care plans and taxes on billionaires
Businessman Andrew Yang advocated for his $1,000-a-month universal basic income policy proposal on Tuesday saying the plan would help families as he mentioned his own two sons, adding that one is autistic
No beef with billionaires: During the Tuesday debate Elizabeth Warren said ‘I don’t have beef with billionaires’ while defending taxing the rich, adding they should pitch in two cents ‘so every other kid in America has a chance to make it’
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro (left) blasted Trump for ‘caging kids on the border’ while he is ‘effectively letting ISIS prisoners run free’ in the Middle East and Beto O’Rourke (right) argued that the U.S. must keep Russia accountable for Putin’s corruption and dropped in a lick of Spanish saying ‘ademas’ in place of ‘furthermore’
Biden, who has taken heat for a series of verbal stumbles on the campaign trail, flubbed when he said: ‘I want to eliminate the capital gains tax ā I would double the capital gains tax’ ā one of his signature tax proposals on Tuesday
In one friendly moment Sen. Bernie Sanders joked ‘Are you suggesting Iām Vladimir Putin?’ to Biden and the two shared a hug
Tuesday’s debate, hosted at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, saw the candidates disagree on having troops in the Middle East, healthcare, and taxing the rich
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota delivered an impassioned attack on Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
‘Heās digging up dirt on an opponent. Thatās illegal conduct,’ said Klobuchar, also a former prosecutor. ‘Iām still waiting to find out from him how making that call to the head of Ukraine and trying to get him involved in interfering in our election makes America great again.’
‘I would like to hear from him how coddling up to Vladimir Putin makes America great again. It doesnāt make America great again, it makes Russia great again,’ she said, playing off Trumpās campaign slogan.
Former Obama Housing and Urban Development secretary Julian Castro said of the impeachment effort: ‘We can walk and chew gum at the same time.’
Biden, who has taken heat for a series of verbal stumbles on the campaign trail, flubbed when he said: ‘I want to eliminate the capital gains tax ā I would double the capital gains tax’ ā one of his signature tax proposals.
‘The rich are not like you and me,’ said Warren, calling for her tax on multi-millionairesā accumulated wealth.
Klobuchar didnāt denounce the idea, but said: ‘Just because we have different ideas and get to the same place in terms of beating Donald Trump and taking this on ā we are in Ohio, we can win Ohio in the presidency, but only if we unite ā¦ and [not] go fighting against each other.’
But as the debate shifted quickly from impeachment to health, the united front crumbled rapidly.
Elizabeth Warren came under attack from her fellow Democrats for not being more specific about how she would pay for her universal health care plan, which some economists predict could cost in the trillions.
‘I have made clear what my principles are here. That is costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations and for hard working middle class families, costing will go down,’ the Massachusetts senator said of her support for Medicare for All. ‘Costs will go up for wealthy, for big corporations. They will not go up for middle class families. I will not sign a bill into law that raises their costs. Because costs are what people care about.’
In the second hour of the debate Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, both military veterans, went head to head over U.S. presence in the Middle East and Syria. Gabbard called U.S. boots in Syria a ‘regime change war’. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg hit back saying: ‘Respectfully, congresswoman, I think that is dead wrong. The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence, it a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values’
Getting heated: Buttigieg and former Congressman Beto O’Rourke also squabbled over OāRourke’s proposed mandatory buy-backs of assault-style rifles. Buttigieg called the policy impractical and after some back and forth slammed: ‘I don’t need lessons from you on courage ā political or personal’
Pete Buttigieg went on the attack against Warren, who has lead recent polls for the Democratic nomination, arguing that her universal health care plan would divide the country over health care.
‘I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage is to obliterate private plans,’ he said. ‘Our country will be polarized, more than now, after everything we have been through, after everything we are about to go through, this country will be more divide. Why divide this country over health care when there’s a better way to deliver coverage for all?’
Amy Klobuchar also struck out at Warren, saying she hasnāt said how she will pay for her plan.
‘I’m sorry Elizabeth,’ she said. ‘You are making Republican talking points in this room.’
Klobuchar went on to say: ‘Bernie is being honest. We owe it to the American people to tell them where we will send the invoice.’
Sanders had acknowledged earlier in the debate taxes will go up under his Medicare for All plan.
‘As somebody who wrote the damn bill, as I said, let’s be clear. Under the Medicare for All bill that I wrote, premiums are gone. Co-payments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of-pocket expenses are gone. We’re going to do better than the Canadians do. That’s what they have managed to do. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills. I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They will go up significantly for the wealthy and for virtually everybody, the tax increase will be substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out of pocket expansions,’ he said.
Klobuchar, meanwhile, went in for the kill on Warren.
‘I appreciate Elizabeth’s work,’ she added but then said: ‘The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done. We can get this public option done.’
Both Klobuchar and Kamala Harris expressed frustration about how many times Democrats have argued about health care, noting they are in the fourth debate and saying the same things on the issue.
‘What bothers me about this discussion, which we had so many times, is that we don’t talk about the things that I’m hearing about from regular Americans. That’s long-term care,’ Klobuchar said. ‘We need long-term care insurance and strengthen Medicare. In Ohio that has been hit by the opioid epidemic, we need to take on the pharmaceutical companies and make them pay for the addictions they have caused in the people they have killed.’
And Harris got an extended round of applause for standing up for the abortion issue, which is of huge importance to Democratic primary voters who are worried judges appointed by Trump will revoke Roe vs. Wade.
‘This is the sixth [sic] debate we have had in this presidential cycle. Not one word with all of these discussions about health care, on women’s access to health care. It’s outrageous. There are states that have passed laws that will virtually prevent women from having access to reproductive health care. It’s not an exaggeration to say women will die because these Republican legislatures in these various states who are out of touch with America are telling women what to do with their bodies. Women are the majority of the population in this country. People need to keep their hands off of women’s bodies and let women make the decisions about their own lives,’ she said as the heavily Democratic audience cheered loudly.
When the debate turned to foreign policy, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard faced rejoinders from Democrats when she called out both President Trump and threw out blanket attacks on those who back what she termed a ‘regime change war’ in Syria.
Tom takes on Trump: Speaking on breaking up big tech companies, billionaire Tom Steyer directed a message to Trump and said: ‘I would love to take him on as a real businessman’
Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s husband Chasten Buttigieg pictured in the audience of the fourth Democratic primary debate
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and entrepreneur Andrew Yang shared a high-five alongside Mayor Buttigieg during Tuesday’s debate
‘First of all, we’ve got to understand the reality of the situation there, which is that the slaughter of the Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war we’ve been waging in Syria,’ Gabbard said. ‘Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011,ā she continued, before blasting members of the ‘mainstream media’ who she said have been ācheerleading this regime change war.’
‘Just two days ago the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears. This morning a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable. As president I will end these regime change wars,’ she said.
Gabbard was referencing a recent Times piece that noted the lawmaker, who met with Assad in Syria and has accused fellow Democrats of ‘rigging’ the race, had injected āchaosā in the race, while drawing supportive comments from former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and online approval from Russian bots.
Buttigieg took on Gabbard.
‘Well, respectfully, congresswoman, I think that is dead wrong. The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence, it a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values.’
Buttigieg, who like Gabbard has been deployed overseas as part of the military, said it was wrong to ‘abandon the international stageā or āthink our only choices are between endless war and total isolation.’
He said many U.S. troops are āashamed of what their country has doneā by abandoning Kurdish allies who served as a ground force to take on ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
‘I donāt think we should have troops in the Middle East,’ said Warren. But she said the U.S. should extract its troops ‘the right way,’ then teed off on Trump, saying he has ‘sucked up to dictator,’ has ‘cut and run on our allies,’ and ‘has enriched himself at the expense of the United States of America.’
Warren tried to turn the tables on her rivals when asked about her plan to tax multimillionaires.
‘My question is not why do Bernie and I support a wealth tax. It’s why is it does everyone else on this stage think it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to invest in an entire generation of Americans?’ she asked.
‘No one is supporting billionaires,’ Biden interjected.
Buttigieg said he was ‘all for’ a wealth tax. ‘I’m all for just about everything that was just mentioned in these answers. Let me tell, though, how this looks from the industrial Midwest where I live. Washington politicians, congressmen and senators, saying all the right things, offering the most elegant policy prescriptions, and nothing changes,’ he said.
Added Warren: ‘So understand, taxing income is not going to get you where you need to be the way taxing wealth does, that the rich are not like you and me. The really, really billionaires are making their money off their accumulated wealth, and it just keeps growing. We need a wealth tax in order to make investments in the next generation.’
In the second hour Bernie Sanders reassured ‘I’m healthy, I’m feeling great’ after he suffered a heart attack several weeks ago. He thanked his Democratic rivals on stage with him ‘for their love, for their prayers, for their well wishes.’ When Cory Booker joked, ‘Senator Sanders is in favor of medical marijuana’, he joked, ‘I’m not on it tonight’
‘I’m feeling great!’ Sanders smiled as his peers including Sen. Kamala Harris and former Vice President Joe Biden applauded him after he shared his health update with the crowd
Sen. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren sparred when Harris insisted on suspending Donald Trump from Twitter as Warren discussed breaking up and regulating tech giants. Warren quipped: ‘I don’t just want to push Donald Trump off Twitter. I want to push him out of the White House’
CNN anchor Erin Burnett took the debate in a fraught direction when she asked a series of candidates questions about their age and asked Biden, Warren and Sanders their views of it. Biden quipped back it made him more wise for the job
Moderators pointed out Biden, 76, would be 80 in office. He replied: ‘Look, one of the reasons I’m running is because of my age and my experience, with it comes wisdom. We need someone to take office this time around who on day one can stand on the world stage, command the respect of world leaders from Putin to our allies, and know exactly what has to be done to get this country back on track’
CNN’s Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper and the New York Times’ Marc Lacey pictured at the moderators desk
CNN anchor Erin Burnett took the debate in a fraught direction when she asked a series of candidates questions about their age.
‘To the issue of candidates and their health: Senator Sanders, I want to start with you,’ she began.
‘I’m healthy. I’m feeling great,’Ā Sanders interrupted, drawing laughter from the crowd.
‘And Senator Sanders is in favor of medical marijuana. I want to make sure that’s clear as well,’ Booker jested.
‘I’m not on it tonight,’ Sanders insisted.
‘Senator, we are all very glad you’re feeling well,’ Burnett said.
Then she posed a āquestion on a lot of people’s minds ā¦ You’re 78 years old, and you just had a heart attack. How do you reassure democratic voters that you’re up to the stress of the presidency?’
‘Well, let me invite you all to a major rally we’re having in Queens, New York,’ Sanders said. ‘We’re going to have a special guest at that event, and we are going to be mounting a vigorous campaign all over this country. That is how I think I can reassure the American people.’
‘But let me take this moment, if I might, to thank so many people from all over this country, including many of my colleagues up here, for their love, for their prayers, for their well wishes,’ Sanders continued. ‘And I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and Iām so happy to be back here with you this evening.’ That drew sustained applause from candidates and audience members alike.
Burnett then asked Biden if he could handle the office of the presidency being inaugurated at the age of 80. She also put an age question to Warren, 71.
Any of the three of them would all be the oldest president ever inaugurated in their first term in U.S. history if elected.
The end of the debate: At the close of the heated debate Joe Biden shook hands with Pete Buttigieg
+46
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg then posed with fans following the wrap up of the debate
Say cheese: Biden snapped selfies with supporters following the fourth Democratic primary where he defended his age and boasted he’s the most qualified man for the job
Cool down: Elizabeth Warren took a swing of coconut water after the debate where she was attacked multiple times and treated like the frontrunner of the political race
Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg made sure to get a photo with Joe Biden and supporters before exiting the stage
On Tuesday it was reported that Congress ‘Squad’ member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (left) would endorse Sen. Bernie Sander’s presidential campaign. Fellow member Ilhan Omar (right) also endorsed Sanders Tuesday night
Story 2: President Trump Calls House Speaker Pelosi A Third Rate Politician In Exchange of Words — “Goodbye, we’ll see you at the polls.” — Speaker Pelosi Stormed Out of Meeting — Democrats Lying:Ā No Trump Meltdown — Videos
McCarthy says Pelosi stormed out of meeting with Trump over Syria
Hannity: Trump calls Pelosi a ‘third-rate politician’
Nancy Pelosi: Trump had a meltdown in meeting
Day 1,000: Nancy Pelosi Says Trump Had A ‘Meltdown’ At The White House | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
‘See you at the polls’: Trump and Pelosi have it out
PUBLISHED:Ā 19:58 EDT, 16 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 22:03 EDT, 16 October 2019
He said she’s a “third-grade” politician. She said he’s having a meltdown.
And with that President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chalked up the latest explosive meeting that ended abruptly with a walkout at the White House.
It’s a familiar ritual, with Trump and congressional leaders meeting on official business, only to see the session devolve into colorful, name-calling commentary that’s a new kind of addition to the history books. But this time, against the backdrop of the fast-moving impeachment inquiry, Pelosi arrived not just as the leader of the opposing party, but as the speaker who could determine Trump’s political future.
The administration called in congressional leadership to discuss the situation in Syria. The House had just voted, 354-60, to overwhelmingly oppose the president’s announced U.S. troop withdrawal, a rare bipartisan rebuke. Trump’s action has opened the door for a Turkish military attack on Syrian Kurds who have been aligned with the U.S. in fighting the country’s long-running war.
Trump kicked off the meeting bragging about his “nasty” letter to Turkish President Recep Erdogan, according to a Democrat familiar with the meeting who was granted anonymity to discuss it. In the letter, Trump warned the Turkish leader, with exclamation points, not to be “slaughtering” the Kurds. The person called Trump’s opening a lengthy, bombastic monologue.
Pelosi mentioned the House vote and Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, started to read the president a quote from former Defense Secretary James Mattis on the need to keep U.S. troops in Syria to prevent a resurgent of Islamic State fighters.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., listens while speaking with reporters after a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
But Trump cut Schumer off, complaining that Mattis was “the world’s most overrated general. You know why? He wasn’t tough enough.” Trump went on, “I captured ISIS.”
Pelosi explained to Trump that Russia has always wanted a “foothold in the Middle East,” and now it has one with the U.S. withdrawal, according to a senior Democratic aide who was also granted anonymity.
“All roads with you lead to Putin,” the speaker said.
Then it began.
Trump said to Pelosi, “I hate ISIS more than you do.”
Pelosi responded, “You don’t know that.”
Schumer intervened at one point and said, “Is your plan to rely on the Syrians and the Turks?”
Trump replied, “Our plan is to keep the American people safe.”
Pelosi said: “That’s not a plan. That’s a goal.”
Trump turned to Pelosi and complained about former President Barack Obama’s “red line” over Syria. According to Schumer, he then called her “a third-rate politician.”
At that point, the genteel Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader, interjected, “This is not useful.”
Pelosi and Hoyer stood and left the meeting. As they did, Trump said, “Goodbye, we’ll see you at the polls.”
From the White House driveway, Pelosi told reporters Trump was having some kind of “meltdown” inside. She said they had to leave because Trump was unable to grasp the reality of the situation.
Later, she would insist he even botched the insult, calling her “third-grade” rather than “third-rate.”
The impeachment inquiry never came up, she said.
Trump insisted later on Twitter that it was Pelosi who had a “total meltdown,” calling her “a very sick person!”
He also tweeted pictures from the room. “Do you think they like me?” he asked mockingly about one, showing Pelosi and Schumer looking exhausted and glum.
“Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown!” he tweeted with another.
In that photo, Pelosi can be seen, surrounded by congressional leaders and military brass around a table at the White House, finger outpointed. She is standing up, literally, to Trump.
Pelosi turned the photo into the banner on her Twitter page.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks with reporters after a meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump speaks during a reception for Italian President Sergio Mattarella in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Story 1: Senator Mitch McConnell on Unfair Behind Closed Doors Single Party Impeachment Inquiry and Syria — Videos —
Senator Mitch McConnell: Democrats Are ‘Throwing Fairness And Precedent To The Wind’ | NBC News
Senate Needs to Make a Strong, Strategic Statement on Syria
Trump was ‘absolutely right’ to take troops out of Syria: Rand Paul
Democrats, Republicans unite on Trumpās decision on Syria
Senate Needs to Make a Strong, Strategic Statement on Syria
McConnell splits with Trump on Syria pullout
Mitch McConnell rebukes Donald Trump over Turkish invasion of Kurdish-held Syria, saying troop pullout gives Iran a chance to reach Israel’s doorstep and contending worthwhile intervention does NOT make the U.S. world’s policeman
McConnell once again expressed his ‘grave concern’ about the situation in SyriaĀ Ā
Said the door is ‘wide open’ for resurgence of ISIS
Said policy could put Iran on Israel’s ‘door-step’
Said standing up for U.S. interests does not make nation the ‘evil empire’
Trump has repeatedly complained the nation should not be world’s policemanĀ
At the same time, he blasted House Democrats on impeachment
PUBLISHED:Ā 17:14 EDT, 15 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 17:14 EDT, 15 October 2019
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell directly confrontedĀ President Trump‘s complaint that U.S. troop deployment’s make it the ‘world’s policeman’ and expressed his ‘grave concern’ about Trump’s policy moves inĀ Syria.
McConnell issued the rebuke without directly blaming President Trump for the latest calamity in the region ā although he said Trump’s policy threatens to putĀ IranĀ on Israel’s door-step and fuel a ‘humanitarian catastrophe.’
Following Turkey’s incursion into Syria in territory that had been controlled by U.S.-allied members of the Kurdish minority, McConnell warned that the ‘door is wide open for resurgence of the Islamic State.’
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took on President Trump’s contention that having forces remain in Syria was akin to being the ‘world’s policeman’
In a Senate floor speech, McConnell said the situation created a power vacuum that could fuel the meddling influence of Russia, and ‘leaving northeastern Syria wide open Iran to extend reach unimpeded all the way from tehran to the door step of our friends in Israel.
He also confronted the view, espoused directly by President Trump, that the U.S. should pull out of the region rather serving as the ‘world’s policeman.’
‘I want to make something clear, the United States has taken the fight to Syria and Afghanistan because that is where our enemies are, that’s why we’re there. Fighting terrorists, exercising leadership and troubled regions and advancing U.S. interests around the world does not make us an evil empire or the world’s policeman,’ McConnell said.
This picture taken on October 15, 2019 shows a missile fired by Turkish forces towards the Syrian town of Ras al-Ain, from the Turkish side of the border at Ceylanpinar district in Sanliurfa on the first week of Turkey’s military operation against Kurdish forces
McConnell shared his ‘grave concern’ about the situation in Syria
‘When it looked like President Trump would withdraw from Syria at beginning of the year, 70 senators joined in warning of the risk of precipitously withdrawing from Syria or Afghanistan,’ McConnell noted in his floor speech
McConnell had also warned of his ‘grave concern’ in a written statement Monday that did not mention Trump by name. But in his floor speech Tuesday, he included such a reference.
‘When it looked like President Trump would withdraw from Syria at beginning of the year, 70 senators joined in warning of the risk of precipitously withdrawing from Syria or Afghanistan,’ McConnell noted.
But even as he challenged the president on a policy that has resulted in the release of ISIS prisoners, led to attacks against key regional allies, and even led to shelling by Turkish forces toward a U.S. troop-held position, he defended the president on impeachment by attacking Democrats.
‘House Democrats are finally indulging in their impeachment obsession. Full steam ahead,’ McConnell warned. ‘I don’t think many of us were expecting to witness a clinic in terms of fairness or due process. But even by their own partisan standards, House Democrats have already found new ways to lower the bar,’ he complained.
McConnell has said he was required by Senate rules to hold a trial should the House impeach Trump.
He resorts to sanctions as the harm from withdrawal builds.
By The Editorial Board
What a fiasco. Foreign-policy blunders often take months or years to reveal their damaging consequences, but the harm from President Trumpās abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria is playing out almost in real time.
Critics said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would invade northern Syria despite Mr. Trumpās public warnings, and the Turkish strongman did. Critics said our Kurdish allies would strike a deal with Syriaās Bashar Assad to defend themselves, and the Kurds have. Critics said Islamic State prisoners held by the Kurds would be released and scatter to wage jihad again, and they are.
The mess compounded Monday when Mr. Trump authorized sanctions against several Turkish officials and agencies who are ācontributing to Turkeyās destabilizing actions in northeast Syria.ā The sanctions include financial measures and barring entry to the U.S. Mr. Trump also said heās ending trade talks with Turkey and raising steel tariffs to 50%.
Mr. Trump now finds himself back in an economic and diplomatic brawl with Turkey that he said he wanted to avoid. Wouldnāt it have been easier simply to tell Mr. Erdogan, on that famous phone call two Sundays ago, that the U.S. wouldnāt tolerate a Turkish invasion against the Kurds and would use air power to stop it? Mr. Erdogan would have had to back down and continue negotiating a Syrian safe zone with the Kurds and the U.S.
Mr. Trump is also making matters worse with his unserious justifications. āAfter defeating 100% of the ISIS Caliphate, I largely moved our troops out of Syria. Let Syria and Assad protect the Kurds and fight Turkey for their own land,ā he tweeted Monday. āAnyone who wants to assist Syria in protecting the Kurds is good with me, whether it is Russia, China, or Napoleon Bonaparte. I hope they all do great, we are 7,000 miles away!ā
We suppose the Napoleon line was a joke, but the world is laughing at an American President. Mr. Trump was able to project an image of strength in his early days as he prosecuted the war against ISIS and used force to impose a cost on Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons. But that image has faded as he has indulged his inner Rand Paul and claims at every opportunity that the main goal of his foreign policy is to put an end to āendless wars.ā
This is simple-minded isolationism, and itās a message to the worldās rogues that a U.S. President has little interest in engaging on behalf of American allies or interests. Friends like Israel and Saudi Arabia are quietly dismayed, while Iran, Russia and Hezbollah canāt believe Mr. Trump has so glibly abandoned U.S. commitments and military partners.
By now itās not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Trumpās foreign policy can be distilled into two tacticsāsanctions and tariffs. Mr. Trump wields them willy-nilly against friend and foe alike as substitutes for diplomacy and the credible threat of military force.
Mr. Trump wonāt like to hear it, but the Syrian mess is hurting him at home too. Republicans who have stood by him through the Russia fight and more are questioning his judgment as Commander in Chief in an increasingly dangerous world. With impeachment looming, he canāt afford to alienate more friends.
TRUMPāS CHAOTIC SYRIA EXIT PUTS ANTI-WAR 2020 DEMOCRATS IN A DELICATE SPOT
THE PENTAGONĀ announcedĀ on Monday that the U.S. was pulling all of its troops out of northeastern Syria at President Donald Trumpās direction, completing a withdrawal he had started by Twitter declaration a week earlier. The move further clears the way for a full-on invasion by Turkey, whose soldiers have alreadyĀ been accused of executing noncombatants. In the chaos,Ā hundreds of Islamic State detaineesĀ have reportedly escaped.
Trump defended his decision in a series of early-morningĀ tweetsĀ on Monday. āThe same people who got us into the Middle East mess are the people who most want to stay there!ā he wrote. āNever ending wars will end!ā
Trumpās abandonment of eastern Syria and the U.S. militaryās Kurdish allies has put progressive Democrats ā many of whom also favor withdrawing from overseas military operations ā in a delicate spot. Over the past week, they have been trying to thread the needle between condemning Trump for recklessly abandoning an ally and emphasizing that withdrawing U.S. troops should be an eventual policy goal.
Trumpās decision has showcased what a worst-case scenario for expedited military withdrawal could look like, making it harder for progressive Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to press their cases against āendless warsā on the campaign trail. The question of how progressives can go about drawing down U.S. military commitments without repeating Trumpās calamitous actions would be an obvious pick for Tuesday nightās Democratic debate.
So far, the Democratic candidates have been critical of Trump but light on specifics about what they would do differently. Last week, Sanders condemned Trumpās withdrawal from Syria,Ā telling reportersĀ that āas somebody who does not want to see American troops bogged down in countries all over the world ā you donāt turn your back on allies who have fought and died alongside American troops. You just donāt do that.ā But when George Stephanopoulos askedĀ Sunday morning on ABC for Sanders to explain the difference between his and Trumpās approaches, Sanders responded simply that Trump ālies. I donāt.ā
Warrenās response was similarly vague. SheĀ tweetedĀ that āTrump recklessly betrayed our Kurdish partnersā and that āwe should bring our troops home, but we need to do so in a way that respects our security.ā
Trump Turned His Back on Syrian Kurds. Hereās How They View Their New Precarious Position.
Ro Khanna, a DemocraticĀ representative from California and co-chair of Sandersās 2020 campaign, told The InterceptĀ that progressives urgently need to make the case for a ādoctrine of responsible withdrawal.ā
āI donāt believe that withdrawal from a progressive perspective means a moral indifference to the lives of the places that we leave,ā Khanna said in a phone interview. āItās not an āAmerica Firstā approach that says our interests and our American lives are the only things that have moral worth. Rather, our withdrawal is based on an understanding of the limitations of American power to shape and restructure societies. It emphasizes the need for effective diplomacy and understands our moral obligations in these places.ā
The U.S. should not have withdrawn troops without negotiating a deal that would have kept Turkey from invading Syria, backed by a threat to withhold future arms sales and economic assistance, Khanna told The Intercept. āWe could have used all those points of leverage to get their commitment that they wouldnāt slaughter the Kurds.ā
Another key difference between Trumpās approach and that of progressives is their level of trust for civil service expertise, Khanna said. āWhat this shows is that itās not enough to have a president with certain instincts. Foreign policy requires great expertise. You need a progressive president who understands the importance of military restraint, but who also has the ability to put together an extraordinary foreign policy team to implement the goals that they may have.ā
Far from admiring Trumpās approach to Syria, many anti-interventionists and foreign policy experts in D.C. view it as a blueprint for howĀ notĀ to withdraw from a conflict, according to Adam Wunische, a researcher with theĀ Quincy Institute, a new pro-diplomacy, noninterventionist, and nonpartisan think tank.
āWhat we should have been doing from the very beginning is once we achieved the limited objective of destroying ISIS territory, they should have immediately begun contemplating what kind of peace or settlement could come afterwards,ā Wunische told The Intercept. āTo my knowledge, the U.S. is one of the only actors that can effectively talk to both the Turks and the Kurds. So they should have been trying to find an acceptable political arrangement for all the parties involved that doesnāt involve an endless, ill-defined military presence for the U.S.ā
The Quincy Institute is working on a report outlining a possible plan for U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan that would avoid the type of disorder on display in northeastern Syria, Wunische said, though the timing of the report remains unclear.
Join Our Newsletter
Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.
Iām in
Throughout the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, a number of candidates have railed against āendless wars.ā But in a conversation that has been defined by intricate domestic policy proposals and detailed outlines of how to structure a wealth tax, candidates have said little about the rest of the world and even less about how they would wind down overseas conflicts.
Sanders, for example, hasĀ calledĀ for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan āas expeditiously as possible.ā Warren has said āitās long past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so immediately.ā Joe Biden has said he would bring āAmerican combat troops in Afghanistan home during my first term,ā but left the door open for a āresidual U.S. military presenceāĀ that would be āfocused on counterterrorism operations.ā When asked during aĀ July debateĀ whether he would withdraw from Afghanistan during the first year of his presidency, Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend mayor and Navy Reserve veteran who spent seven months in Afghanistan, answered emphatically in the affirmative.
But aside from seeking a diplomatic solution, candidates have said very little about their policies for ending the war. And as in Syria, stakes for U.S. allies in Afghanistan are high.
A JanuaryĀ studyĀ by the Rand Corporation found that a āprecipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistanā would have far-reaching consequences. The legitimacy for the U.S.-backed Kabul government would plummet, the report argued, and the Taliban would extend its control and influence. People all across the country would turn to regional militias and rival warlords for basic security.
āI donāt think that anyone, whether they promise it or not, is going to get out of Afghanistan in a week,ā said Wuinsche. āWhat we need to focus on is, what is the political solution that we think is possible, and how do we get there? That requires marshaling all of these different tools of foreign policy, not just the military.ā
Kate Kizer, policy director for the D.C.-based advocacy group Win Without War, stressed that one of the most revealing differences between progressives and Trump is how they would treat a conflictās refugees. Under Trump, the U.S. has accepted historically low numbers of refugees andĀ closed the doorĀ on future Syrian immigrants applying for Temporary Protected Status.
āOne of the cruelest parts of Trumpās policy is the fact that, in addition to fueling more bloodshed with this decision, heās also banning any types of civilians who would be fleeing from the conflict,ā Kizer said. āIn a situation like Syria and even Afghanistan, thereās a way to responsibly withdraw and then thereās a way to cut and run, which is what Trump has shown he has a predilection for. But Iām not sitting here saying that any type of military withdraw will necessarily be bloodless.ā
Story 2: The Search of Leakers in Trump Administration — Videos
RUST NO ONE
Trump Suspects a Spiteful John Bolton Is Behind Some of the Ukraine Leaks
Trump fears the leaks are now coming from the people he chose to serve himāand that only increases the paranoia currently infecting the West Wing.
Asawin Suebsaeng
White House Reporter
Sam Stein
Politics Editor
At a critical juncture in his presidency, facing a rapidly unfoldingĀ impeachment inquiryĀ by House Democrats, Donald Trump is feeling besieged by snitches.
In recent weeks, numerous leaks have appeared in the pages ofĀ The Washington Post,Ā The New York Times,Ā The Wall Street Journal, and other major papers and news outlets detailing the presidentās attempts to enlist foreign leaders to help dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and also aid Trumpās quest to discredit Special Counsel Robert Muellerās concluded investigation. And as is his MO, theĀ media-obsessed president has been fixated on not just the identity of the whistleblower behind the internal complaint that brought this scandal to the fore, but also on who, exactly, has been namelessly feeding intel to the press.
In the course of casual conversations with advisers and friends, President Trump has privately raised suspicions that a spiteful John Bolton, his notoriously hawkish former national security adviser, could be one of the sources behind the flood of leaks against him, three people familiar with the comments said. At one point, one of those sources recalled, Trump guessed that Bolton was behind one of the anonymous accounts that listed the former national security adviser as one of the top officials most disturbed by the Ukraine-related efforts of Trump and Rudy Giuliani, the presidentās personal attorney who remainsĀ at the center ofĀ activities that spurred the impeachment inquiry.
ā[Trump] was clearly implying [it, saying] something to the effect of, āOh, gee, I wonder who the source on that could be,āā this source said, referring to the presidentās speculation. Bolton, for his part, told The Daily Beast last month that allegations that he was a leaker in Trumpās midst are āflatly incorrect.ā
The former national security adviserāwho departed the administration last month onĀ awful,Ā mutually bitterĀ termsāis working on a book about his time serving Trump, and has āa lot to dish,ā one knowledgeable source noted.
Neither Bolton nor White House spokespeople provided comment for this story. Matt Schlapp, an influential conservative activist with close ties to the White House, said his assumption was that the leaks were coming from ācareer folks inside who hate Trumpā and that the president and his campaign had ā14 months of thisā to come. As for Bolton, Schlapp said, āHeās smarter than that, although he does aggressively defend himself.ā
Indeed, Boltonās name surfaced Monday before House impeachment inquiry committees, when Hill reportedly testified that he told her to alert the chief lawyer for the National Security Council that Giuliani was working with Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, on an operation with legal implications, theĀ TimesĀ reported late Monday. āI am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up,ā Bolton told Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to sources familiar with the testimony.
āI have not spoken to John about [his comments, as conveyed by Hill],ā Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Tuesday morning. āJohn is a longtime friend. I have no idea why John is doing this. My best guess is that heās confused and bought into a false media narrative without bothering to call me about it.ā
Regarding Boltonās reported comment about Mulvaney being involved in this figurative Ukraine ādrug deal,ā the former New York City mayor insisted that āMick wasnāt involved in this. I donāt recall having any lengthy conversation with him about this subject… I donāt recall ever having a lengthy conversation [about Ukraine] with John, either.ā
Trump has felt under siege from within before, including at various flashpoints of his presidency. For instance, near the end of the Mueller probe, the president became so distrustful and resentful toward Don McGahn, his own White House counsel at the time, he started asking those close to him, āIs [Don] wearing a wire?ā
But the current sense that he has been undermined by people whom he brought into his orbit has come at a critical juncture and colored some of the decisions he has made since the whistleblower complaint became public.Ā The president has openly declared that the whistleblower committed an act of treason. He has attempted to stop prominent advisersāincluding Ambassador to the European UnionĀ Gordon Sondland, a man who donated $1 million to the Trump inaugurationāfrom testifying to Congress, only to apparently fail. On Monday, Fiona Hill, Trumpās former top adviser on Russia and Europe, was on Capitol Hill, where she reportedly told lawmakers that Sondland and GiulianiĀ circumventedthe standard national-security process on high-profile Ukraine matters. The president has struggled to add to his current legal team, and appeared to begin putting some distance between himself and GiulianiĀ last week.
And when outside allies began to talk about constructing a war room to help with impeachment, Trump shot down the concept, in part out of a sense that he couldnāt rely on them to get the message out right. One top White House aide subsequently labeled the idea an exercise by āoutside peeps trying to self-aggrandize.ā
The impression left on Republicans is one of a president increasingly driven by paranoia and a desire for insularityāand not, necessarily, to his own benefit.
āThere is a certain level of frustration that all the sudden the president says something, then Rudy does, and it is not always consistent. There is a frustration that not everybody knows what they should be doing. It is not that they canāt defend the president it is a frustration that they donāt know exactly how they are supposed to defend the president,ā said John Brabender, a longtime GOP consultant. āFrom the presidentās perspective, this whole thing is a witch hunt and is outrageous and, therefore, it shouldnāt even need explanationā¦But with that said, you canāt just be angry. You need a unified communications team.ā
According to those whoāve known the president, the sense that a good chunk of the government has never fully accepted his presidency and has actively worked to undermine it has animated much of his activity over the past few weeks. And though they believe he has a point, they also wonder if it is making him functionally incapable of taking the advice of some advisers: to simply ignore impeachment and apply his attention to other facets of governance.
Trump, they add, is preternaturally incapable of ignoring press about him and lingers particularly on leaks that depict atmospherics of his inner sanctum, the West Wing, and his internal well-being.
āIn my experience, what he despises is somebody writing that Donald Trump feels under siege and his emotions are this and his thinking is this,ā said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide. āHe hates people saying what he is thinkingā¦ And one of his most frequent tricks in terms of talking about himself on background [as an anonymous source] is him having the reporter say [he is] someone āfamiliar with the presidentās thinking.āā
Nunberg said he had yet to see a blind quote in any recent report that would lead him to believe that Trump is cold-calling reporters. But the president is certainly working the fourth estate. Democratic aides were left shaking their heads last week when they received an email from the White House with the subject line, āArticle from President Trumpā and a PDF attachment of a Kimberly StrasselĀ Wall Street JournalĀ column.
āHeās apparently so anxious about GOP support in the Senate, heās taken to sending WSJ columns against the House inquiry,ā said a Senate source.
Still, for all of Trumpās grousing and preoccupation with who is and isnāt stabbing him in the back, loyalty has always been a one-way street for this president. Last week, after the news broke thatĀ Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Soviet-born businessmen tied to Giuliani, were arrested on charges of violating campaign-finance law, a reporter at the White House asked Trump if the former New York mayor was still his personal attorney. The president responded that he didnāt know.
Though the president would later tweet out his support for Giuliani over the weekend, Trump has a long track record for being loyal to and supportive of a longtime associate, friend, or stafferāup until the moment heās not. Perhaps the quintessentialĀ exampleĀ of this is that of one of the presidentās former attorneys,Ā Michael Cohen, who famously turned on Trump after becoming convinced that the president had abandoned him while he was in the crosshairs of federal prosecutors.
Asked by The Daily Beast last week if the president told him that he still had his lawyerās backāan attorney who further earned the presidentās trust by defending Trump during the Mueller investigationāGiuliani let out a big belly-laugh and responded, āThereās nothing, [no knife], in my back.ā
āMy back feels very comfortable right now,ā he added.
Donald Trump delivers his first national policy speech outlining his views on U.S. foreign policy and changes he would make.
Ousted National Security advisor John Bolton calls Donald Trump a LIAR for claiming he was fired and insists he resigned, amid claims the pair clashed over presidentās plan to host the Taliban at Camp David
Trump fired Bolton by tweet just before noon Tuesday in a dramatic and unexpected move
He said he ‘disagreed strongly’ with Bolton ‘as did others in the administration’Ā
Bolton tweeted minutes later, apparently from somewhere on the White House computer network, that Trump blew him off when he tried to resign
Other names in the mix: Mick Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair, hostage affairs envoy Robert O’Brien and senior Pompeo adviser Brian Hook
President had clashed with Bolton about Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela, and mostĀ recently on peace talks with the Taliban
Bolton, 70, had been Trump’s top national security aide since April 2018 after the president dispensed with three-star Army general H.R. McMaster
He texted ‘I resigned’ to a Fox News Channel host, who read it aloud on the air
Shakeup comes just two weeks before the United National General Assembly, where Trump will speak
One leading candidate to replace Bolton is Ric Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to GermanyĀ
PUBLISHED:Ā 12:07 EDT, 10 September 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 18:02 EDT, 10 September 2019
Donald TrumpĀ said Tuesday he had ordered his national security advisor, John Bolton, to resign. But the ousted aide quickly insisted he quit first, then called the president’s version of events untrue.
The drama unfolded after months of deteriorating relations between Trump and his hawkish senior aide.
Trump tweeted just before noon that he had asked Bolton for his resignation and thanked him for ‘his services,’ but Bolton quickly shoved back, texting a Fox News Channel host live on air that ‘I resigned,’ then later textingĀ NBC NewsĀ that the president had never asked him to quit.
‘I offered to resign last night,’ Bolton told NBC in the text message. ‘He never asked for it, directly or indirectly. I slept on it, and resigned this morning.’
Bolton was photographed outside the West Wing on Tuesday morning just before 9:00, standing on the spot where a U.S. Marine is stationed whenever the president is at workĀ ā suggesting that Trump was still in the White House residence and didn’t meet with him.
After Trump announced Bolton’s departure, federal agents were seen at his Washington, D.C. home, removing government property including computer equipment and a shredder.
His abrupt departure and its ugly public aftermath was reportedly set off by the two disagreeing over Trump’s plan to host Taliban representatives at Camp David for peace talks last weekend, days before the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Trump publicly announced the cancellation of the previously unreported peace talk plan on Saturday evening; Bolton’s had strongly opposed dealing with the Taliban face-to-face.
The two had already fallen out over Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela; Bolton previously refused to go on television to defend Trump’s Afghanistan and Russia policies during last month’s G7 summit in France.
Over and out: How John Bolton resigns to Donald Trump in a letter which he said was his own initiative but which the president tweeted that he had demanded
Donald Trump and John Bolton became locked in a Twitter war of words over the national security adviser’s departure, with Bolton saying he tried to quit and Trump saying he told him to resign; Bolton is pictured Tuesday morning outside the West Wing of the White House at 8:45 a.m.
Federal agents were seen Tuesday at Bolton’s home in Washington, D.C., removing equipment and other government property a few hours after he was fired; the gear included a shredder, a multifunction printer and other computer equipment
This woman was seen carrying a black satchel down Bolton’s driveway as agents removed other government property from his home
‘I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,’ the president said in a tweet. He had been Trump’s top national security aide since April 2018, when they were photographed together in the Cabinet Room of the White House
They spoke Monday before Trump left for a political rally in North Carolina, accoding to a White House official. Bolton claimed Tuesday that the conversation did not focus on a Taliban-related falling-out.
But he sent the White House a two sentence resignation letter Tuesday morning, and Trump tweeted his departure at 11:58 a.m., an hour and a half before Bolton was due to stand beside Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin for a rare White House press briefing about a raft of new anti-terrorism sanctions.
A leading candidate to replace Bolton is Ric Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany; G.renell was an early Trump backer and is seen as ‘one of the most reliably hard-charging diplomats’ in the administration, according to a State Department source
The two Cabinet members smiled broadly when they were asked if they had been ‘blindsided’ by the sudden departure. ‘I’m never surprised,’ Pompeo grinned.
The president offered no public hint of who might get the job next.
Charles Kupperman, Bolton’s deputy, became acting national security adviser on Tuesday. Bolton said in January that Kupperman ‘has been an advisor to me for more than thirty years.’ That, a White House aide said Tuesday, suggests Trump will quickly sweep him out as part of a National Security Council housecleaning.
Kupperman was already scheduled to be out of the White House in two weeks for an unspecified surgery.
Two White House officials said Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell quickly emerged as a leading candidate to be Trump’s fourth national security adviser in less than three years. One source said the president brought his name up to members of his senior staff shortly after tweeting about Bolton’s dismissal.
Grenell was an early Trump backer and is the administration’s highest ranking openly gay official.A source close to Grenell said Tuesday that he knows ‘how to deliver in a tough post.’ A State Department official speculated that the president might choose him because ‘one of the most reliably hard-charging diplomats’ in the U.S. foreign service.
A different White House official cautioned that since Grenell was Bolton’s chief spokesman at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, he could be seen as ‘fruit from the poisoned tree.’
Bolton was barely three hours away from getting the axe as he checked his phone in front of the West Wing’s north doors; he stood where a U.S. Marine is normally positioned whenever the president is in the West Wing, suggesting Trump was still in the residence and didn’t meet iwth Bolton before he fired him
Robert Blair, another potential Bolton successor, is a senior adviser to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Blair was in charge of national security programs for the White House Budget Office when Mulvaney was its director.
The Wall Street JournalĀ first reported that Blair was in the mix. He did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Bloomberg NewsĀ reported that other possible replacements for Bolton ‘discussed by Trump associates’ include Robert O’Brien, the president’s envoy for hostage affairs, and senior Pompeo adviser Brian Hook.
A White House aide said Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, has expressed a preference for Hook.
It’s unclear what Bolton’s next career move will be.
A Fox News Chanel producer on Tuesday called it ‘unlikely’ that the network will hire him as an on-air pundit.
A source at the Gatestone Institute, an Israel-friendly think tank where he was chairman before coming to the White House, said Tuesday that Bolton was still expected to deliver a previously scheduled luncheon speech to its members on September 18 in New York.
President Trump wasted no time discussing with senior West Wing staff who might be Bolton’s replacement, according to White House officials
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he and Bolton had different in significant ways on foreign policy, but refused during a White House briefing to get into specifics
Trump started the mad scramble with a pair of late morning tweets on Tuesday.
‘I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House,’ the president said in a tweet two minutes before midday, and an hour and a half before Bolton was scheduled to participate in a briefing to reporters at the White House.
‘I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning,’ Trump tweeted.
Pompeo told reporters during the afternoon briefing that ‘there were many times where Ambassador Bolton and I disagreed, that’s to be sure.’
He added that the administration’s policies were the president’s, not Bolton’s. ‘I don’t think any leader around the world should make any assumption that, because some one of us departs, that President Trump’s foreign policy would change in a material way,’ he said.
In his own tweet sent a few minutes after Trump’s, apparently from somewhere on the White House’s own computer network, Bolton said the president blew him off when he tried to resign Monday night. He tweeted: ‘I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, ‘Let’s talk about it tomorrow’.’
He sent a text message to Fox News Channel host Brian Kilmeade, reading: ‘I resigned.’ Kilmeade read it on the air.
The squabbling versions of Bolton’s departure came after White House reporters were told that he,Ā Pompeo and Mnuchin would brief them at 1: 30 p.m.
Bolton was seen as a war hawk who favored military intervention around the globe ā a view that was at odds with Trump’s insistence that America’s troops should stop being ‘the world’s policemen.’
He clashed repeatedly with Pompeo over foreign policy and was recently sidelined during internal White House discussions about how to handle conflicts with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Bolton opposed Trump’s proposals for a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, and was a leading detractor inside the White House of the Camp David peace summit Trump planned and later canceled.
The president called it off after a Taliban suicide bombing attack in Kabul killed 12 people, including an American soldier.
Battle of the tweets: John Bolton tweeted that he tried to quit before he was fired ā and did so from the White House’s own network
Tensions between Bolton and Pompeo ramped up in recent weeks. The two men ā the top foreign policy advisers to the president ā rarely spoke outside of formal meetings, CNN has reported.
Bolton was also in periodic clashes with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.Ā
Bolton, 70, entered the administration in April 2018 after Trump dispensed with his second national security adviser, three-star Army general H.R. McMaster.
He had been a prominent Fox News contributor with aggressive views on the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal and on pressuring NATO members to increase their defense spending.
Trump sometimes joked about Bolton’s image as a warmonger, reportedly saying in one Oval Office meeting that ‘John has never seen a war he doesn’t like.’
But in recent months there had been whispers that Trump was losing patience with him.
When Trump went to South Korea at the end of June and crossed into the DMZ to meet Kim Jong-un, the first sitting president to meet a North Korean leader in the separation zone between the two countries, Bolton was in Mongolia.
TRUMP’S HIGH-PROFILE DEPARTURE LOUNGE
Here are just some of the top officials who have left Trump’s administration and when their departures were announced
2017
Inauguration Day was January 20
January 31:Ā Acting Attorney General Sally YatesĀ
February 13:Ā National Security Adviser Michael Flynn
March 30:Ā Deputy Chief of Staff Katie WalshĀ
April 9:Ā Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland
May 9:Ā FBI Director James ComeyĀ
May 30:Ā Communications Director Michael DubkeĀ
July 21:Ā Press Secretary Sean SpicerĀ
July 28:Ā Chief of Staff Reince PriebusĀ
July 31:Ā Communications Director Anthony ScaramucciĀ
August 18:Ā Chief Strategist Steve Bannon
August 25:Ā National security aide Sebastian GorkaĀ
September 1:Ā Director of Oval Office Operations Keith Schiller
September 29:Ā Health and Human Services Secretary Tom PriceĀ
December 8:Ā Deputy National Security adviser Dina PowellĀ
December 13:Ā Communications director for the White House Office of Public Liaison Omarosa Manigault Newman
2018
February 7:Ā Staff Secretary Rob PorterĀ
February 28:Ā Communications Director Hope HicksĀ
March 6:Ā Director of the National Economic Council Gary CohnĀ
March 12:Ā Special assistant and personal aide to the president John McEntee
March 13:Ā Secretary of State Rex TillersonĀ
March 22:Ā National Security Adviser H.R. McMasterĀ
March 28:Ā Veterans Affairs Secretary David ShulkinĀ
April 10:Ā Homeland Security Adviser Tom BossertĀ
April 11:Ā Deputy National Security Adviser Nadia SchadlowĀ
April 12:Ā Deputy National Security adviser Ricky WaddellĀ
May 2:Ā Ā White House attorney Ty Cobb
June 5:Ā Communications aide Kelly SadlerĀ
Ā July 5:Ā Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt
August 29:Ā White House Counsel Don McGahn
October 9:Ā U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley
November 7:Ā Attorney General Jeff SessionsĀ
December 9:Ā Chief of Staff John Kelly
December 15:Ā Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke
December 20:Ā Defense Secretary Jim Mattis
2019
March 8:Ā Communications Director Bill ShineĀ
April 8:Ā Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen
June 13:Ā White House Press Secretary Sarah SandersĀ
June 18:Ā Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan
June 25:Ā Acting Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner John SandersĀ
July 12:Ā Labor Secretary Alex AcostaĀ
July 28:Ā Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsĀ
August 6:Ā Ambassador to Russia, Jon HuntsmanĀ
August 8:Ā Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Sue Gordon
August 29:Ā President’s personal assistant, Madeleine Westerhout
September 5:Ā Lead Middle East peace negotiator, Jason Greenblatt
September 10:Ā National Security Advisor, John Bolton
ByĀ Shannon Pettypiece, Carol E. Lee, Peter Alexander and Adam Edelman
WASHINGTON ā President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he had fired national security adviser John Bolton after a string of disagreements, removing one of the most hawkish voices in Trump’s inner circle on a number of issues, including Taliban negotiations and China trade talks.
Trump announced on Twitter that he had asked for Bolton’s resignation on Monday night, saying he had “disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions.”
āI informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning,ā Trump said on Twitter.
Donald J. Trump
ā@realDonaldTrump
Ā Ā·Ā
I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore….
Donald J. Trump
ā@realDonaldTrump
….I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.
White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said that Trump had asked for Bolton’s resignation on Monday night, and that it was delivered on Tuesday. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Trump and Bolton had not spoken on Tuesday.
Bolton himself said in a tweet that he had offered to resign Monday night, and that the president had said in response that they would “talk about it tomorrow.”
āI offered to resign last night,” Bolton told NBC News via text. “He never asked for it, directly or indirectly. I slept on it, and resigned this morning.ā He denied reports that he and Trump had gotten into a heated argument Monday night over the presidentās plan to host Taliban leaders at Camp David.
Some National Security Council officials were caught off guard by Boltonās firing, learning about it only when it flashed on TV screens.
Reports over the weekend that Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence disagreed with Trump’s Camp David plan was the last straw for Bolton, according to two people familiar with the matter. On Monday, Pence tweeted that the stories were fake but Bolton did not ā and that, according to the officials, upset Trump.
One person familiar with the breakdown between the two men said Trump didnāt want Bolton attending the U.N. General Assembly in New York with him later this month.
Asked if the disagreement over the Taliban talks led to Boltonās dismissal, Grisham said āthat there was no final straw.”
“There were several issues,” he said. “They had policy disagreements.ā
But speaking on the condition of anonymity, one official said Afghanistan ābroke open the bottom of the bagā in a relationship that had been eroding. Another official confirmed that sharp disagreement over the Afghanistan deal was the final issue that ruptured the relationship.
Bolton, known as a fierce infighter, had few loyal allies internally. He had clashed with many senior members of the administration at times, including Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
But he could also build alliances when needed. He worked closely with Pence on multiple issues, including efforts to replace Venezuelan leader NicolƔs Maduro, and aligned with Pompeo on encouraging a hard-line stance on China, said a former administration official.
He was one of the loudest hawks inside the West Wing, perpetually skeptical of the country’s adversaries and unafraid of the prospect of military conflict. Few others in the upper ranks of the administration were as deeply versed in the nuances of foreign policy, a void that Pompeo will now have an outsize role in filling ā particularly when it comes to Iran, China and Venezuela, said the former official.
Most recently, the two had sparred over Trump’s desire to have leaders of the Taliban visit Camp David in the days before the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to finalize peace talks. The idea was strongly opposed by Bolton, even as officials at the State Department argued it could move the parties closer to an agreement, officials said.
Bolton had been deeply skeptical of negotiations with the Taliban. U.S. negotiators have been working under the presidentās demand that a drawdown occur before November 2020, when heās up for re-election.
Asked if he had been startled by Bolton’s quick exit, Pompeo told reporters he had not. “I’m never surprised. And I donāt mean that on just this issue,” he said.
Boltonās departure could pave the way for a more flexible approach by the Trump administration on North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Afghanistan, former U.S. officials and two current U.S. officials said.
Bolton had pushed Trump to take a harder line on other regimes he has deemed untrustworthy. Trump, on the other hand, campaigned on the promise to get the U.S. out of conflicts.
While Bolton had previously pushed for striking Iran in an effort at regime change, Trump has indicated he would like to sit down with Iranian officials, and that regime change is off the table; Pompeo confirmed Tuesday that the president is likely to speak with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani when the U.N. General Assembly meets in New York. “The president has made it very clear, heās prepared to meet with no preconditions,” said Pompeo.
Some officials in the administration had also grown frustrated with Boltonās stance on Venezuela, in which he pushed for the imposition of harsh sanctions on the Maduro regime and opposed renewing a waiver to allow the energy company Chevron to keep operating in the country.
When asked earlier about his differences with Bolton, Trump indicated he didn’t have a problem with his national security adviser giving an opinion that diverged from his own.
“I have some hawks,” the president said in a “Meet the Press” interview this summer. “Yeah, John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, OK? But that doesn’t matter, because I want both sides.”
Bolton has had his fair share of detractors in Congress. Many of those critics praised his departure ā with even some who held a favorable view of him said the change could be a positive one.
āI like John Bolton, I think he sees the world for what it is. I’ve always had a similar view of threats that we face,ā said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. āBut the personal relationship between the president and national security adviser is important. I think the view that thereās some public discussions about Bolton being on the other side of meeting with the Taliban probably was a bridge too far.ā
But Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said Boltonās departure was a āhuge lossā for the country.
“His view was not always the same as everybody else in the room, thatās why you wanted him there,ā Romney told reporters. āThe fact that he was a contrarian from time to time is an asset, not a liability.ā
This is the third national security adviser that Trump will have to replace. His first, Michael Flynn, was in court for a status hearing on Tuesday before his sentencing for lying to U.S. officials. Flynn’s successor, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, said he was retiring after repeated disagreements with Trump.
It is unclear what will now happen with the team of foreign policy experts Bolton had built over more than a year ā a state of affairs adding yet more instability to the national security ranks under Trump’s presidency.
Trump named Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and undersecretary of state for international security, to the post in a tweet in March 2018. At the time of his appointment, Bolton said in a Fox News interview that he was taken off guard.
Trump said Tuesday that he would name a new national security adviser next week. Gidley said Tuesday afternoon that deputy national security adviser Charlie Kupperman would replace Bolton as the acting national security adviser.
Hours before Trump announced his departure, Bolton sent a final public warning on Iran.
“Now that we’re two weeks from #UNGA, you can be sure #Iran is working overtime on deception,” Bolton wrote in a tweet. “Let’s review the greatest hits, starting with the most recent. #Iran denied the Adrian Darya-1 was headed to #Syria, then confirmed today its oil was offloaded there. #IranWebOfLies”
On the Fourth of July, 1821, John Quincy Adams delivered one of the most remarkable speeches in U.S. history. Having gone down in history with the title āIn Search of Monsters of Destroy,ā Adamsās speech summarized the founding foreign policy of the United States.
Adams pointed out that there are lots of bad things that happen around the world. Brutal dictatorships. Tyranny. Civil wars. Revolutions. Wars between nations. Poverty. Famines.
Notwithstanding the death and destruction such āmonstersā produced in foreign countries, however, the U.S. government would not go abroad to slay them. That was the founding foreign policy of the United States, a policy of nonintervention.
Thatās not to say that the United States was unwilling to offer any assistance to people who were suffering in foreign lands. Private Americans were free to offer their support, either personally or with financial donations. Equally important, the United States had a founding immigration policy of open borders, which meant that anyone who was willing and able to escape the monstrous conditions in his homeland and emigrate to the United States was assured that he would never be forcibly repatriated to his country.
In his speech, Adams also issued a profound admonition. He said that if America were ever to abandon its founding foreign policy of nonintervention, she would inevitably acquire the characteristics of a ādictatress.ā
What are the characteristics of a dictator or a dictatress? Dictatorships wield omnipotent powers, such as the powers to incarcerate, torture, and kill people with impunity or to arbitrarily seize and keep their money or property.
Nonintervention and open immigration were not the only policies that made the United States such an unusual country. There was also no income taxation or IRS. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or farm subsidies. No Federal Reserve System of paper (i.e., fiat) money. No drug laws. Hardly any economic regulations, including minimum-wage laws, price controls, or rent controls. No Pentagon or military-industrial complex. No CIA. No NSA. No FBI. No Homeland Security. No public (i.e., government) schooling systems. No sanctions or embargoes. No war on terrorism. No torture. No indefinite detention. No travel restrictions. The American people didnāt even use passports.
We know there was slavery and some lesser violations of the principles of liberty, such as tariffs. But if we set those exceptions aside and consider the overall founding principles of the United States, it is impossible to reach but one conclusion: It was the most unusual political and economic system that had ever existed in the history of mankind.
It was that unusual system that defined an American. It was that unusual system that caused Americans to believe that they were the freest people in history. It was that unusual system that the French were honoring when they gifted the Statue of Liberty to the American people.
The shift away from freedom
Things started to shift in the late 1890s. Government programs such as Social Security, government health care, public schooling, and progressive income taxation, which were originating among socialists in Germany, began percolating within American society.
At the same time, some Americans were advocating a turn towards empire. Looking to the examples set by the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, and others, such Americans were arguing that it was time for the United States to travel the imperialist road as well. The key to national greatness, they argued, was for the United States to acquire colonies, just like other empires in history.
The great turning point with respect to foreign policy came in 1898 in the Spanish-American War, which, insofar as the United States was concerned, involved a combination of interventionism and empire.
The war originated as a fight for independence by colonies of the Spanish Empire, including Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. That war did not involve the United States. Certainly Spain had not attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. It was purely a war between a foreign empire and its overseas colonies.
But the U.S. government decided to intervene in the conflict by coming to the assistance of the rebelling colonies. The intervention constituted an abandonment of the founding foreign policy of nonintervention that Adams had summarized a half-century before in his Fourth of July speech to Congress. The U.S. government had decided to intervene in the Spanish-American War to slay the monster of the Spanish Empire.
Ā While independence was the goal of the Spanish colonies, that was not the goal of the U.S. government. The goal of the U.S. government was to replace the Spanish Empire as the owner and controller of its colonies.
Thatās why U.S. troops stayed in Cuba after the war was over ā to ensure U.S. control over the island. In fact, that is how the United States ended up with its foreign military base at Guantanamo Bay ā by forcing a compliant administration in Cuba to lease it at a nominal price to the United States in perpetuity.
Ā While the Cuban people deeply resented what had happened, they didnāt resort to a war for independence from the United States, as they had done against Spain. It was different with the Filipino people, however. Having prevailed against Spain in their war for independence, they werenāt about to settle for being a colony of the United States. Thus, they continued their war for independence, only this time against the United States, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives lost at the hands of U.S. forces. In the end, the U.S. government prevailed. The Philippines, along with Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, remained under the control of a foreign power, albeit the United States rather than Spain.
America had turned towards both empire and intervention, which made it easier for Woodrow Wilson to convince Americans to intervene in World War I twenty years later. Wilson argued that U.S. intervention into the European conflict would have two extremely positive effects: One, U.S. intervention would bring an end to war in Europe, something that had besieged that part of the world for centuries, and, two, it would make the entire world safe for democracy.
Securing a declaration of war from Congress, the U.S. government proceeded to intervene in World War I on the side of Great Britain and others and against Germany. The intervention was a clear abandonment of the founding foreign policy of the United States. The U.S. government under Wilson was going abroad in search of monsters to destroy ā precisely the opposite of what Adams had described nearly 100 years before as Americaās founding foreign policy of nonintervention.
Meanwhile, America was shifting in a different direction domestically as well. The progressive income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve System came into existence in the 1910s. In the 1930s, gold coins, which under the U.S. Constitution had been the official money of the American people for more than a century, were nationalized and seized, with any American caught owning them being subject to federal felony prosecution. Irredeemable federal notes and bills were made the official money of the country.
The adoption of Social Security, an idea that had originated among German socialists, heralded the advent of the welfare state in America, a way of life in which the government forcibly takes money from one group of people and gives it to another group of people. At the same time, America was moving towards a regulated, controlled, and managed economy, as reflected by Franklin Rooseveltās National Industrial Recovery Act; minimum-wage laws; maximum-hours laws; and economic, financial, and banking regulations.
World War II
Ā It did not take long for Americans to realize that U.S. intervention in World War I was a total dis-aster, one that had sacrificed tens of thousands of American troops, many of whom had been forced to fight through conscription. The U.S. intervention not only failed to end all war and make the world safe for democracy, it actually laid the political and economic conditions that gave rise to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime.
Thus, it shouldnāt have surprised anyone that the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to intervening in World War II. They had had enough of intervention in Europeās unending conflicts.
But Franklin Roosevelt, like Wilson before him, had other ideas. He was bound and determined to embroil the United States in the European war, this time certain that intervention would prove to be a positive thing for the United States.
Americans, of course, are taught that World War II was a great victory for the United States because Nazi Germany was defeated. They are also taught, however, to ignore the other consequences of the war.
For example, the Poles never considered the defeat of the Nazis to be a victory. Recall that the Poles were the reason that Great Britain had entered the conflict in the first place. Having issued a guarantee to Poland, England declared war on Germany with the intent of freeing the Poles from Nazi tyranny. While victory in the war did, in fact, free the Poles from Nazi tyranny, it also left them under the control of the communist regime of the Soviet Union (which had been Americaās World War II partner and ally), for the next 45 years. From the standpoint of the Poles, there was no difference between Nazi tyranny and communist tyranny, which is why they never celebrated World War II as a victory.
It was the same with the rest of Eastern Europe and, for that matter, East Germany. At the end of the war and for the next 45 years, they had to live under the iron fist of brutal communist rule.
But there is something important to understand about all this: In the midst of the war, Roosevelt actually agreed to deliver those nations into the clutches of Soviet communist leader Joseph Stalin, whom he affectionately referred to as āUncle Joe,ā notwithstanding the fact that Stalin had killed many more people than Hitler.
And then here is the irony: After the Soviets insisted on maintaining postwar control over the nations that Roosevelt had delivered into their clutches, Harry Truman and other U.S. officials used that control to convince Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy, based in Moscow, to conquer the United States and the rest of the world.
The national-security state
The aftermath of Americaās intervention into World War II produced a monumental change in Americaās governmental structure, one that entailed the destruction of a limited-government republic and the adoption of what is known as a ānational-security state.ā
What is a national-security state? It is a type of governmental structure that is inherent to totalitarian regimes. It is characterized by a massive, permanent, generously funded military establishment; a highly secret intelligence agency with omnipotent powers, including assassination; and a massive surveillance operation to secretly monitor and keep track of both citizens and foreigners.
North Korea is a national-security state. So is Russia. And Cuba. And Egypt. And postāWorld War II United States. Thatās what the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA are all about.
In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower referred to this new governmental apparatus as āthe military-industrial complex.ā At the same time, he issued one of the most dramatic warnings in U.S. history, one that rivaled that of John Quincy Adams in 1821. Ike told Americans that this governmental apparatus that was new to the United States posed a grave threat to the liberties and democratic processes of the American people.
President Truman and other U.S. officials told Americans that it was necessary to adopt this totalitarian-like governmental structure in order to prevent Americaās World War II partner and ally, the Soviet Union, from conquering the United States in what became known as the Cold War. It was never made clear how the Soviet Union was going to do that, especially since the entire nation had been devastated by the war and then had continued its socialist economic system, which inevitably makes a nation weaker, not stronger.
Nonetheless, the Soviet Union was converted into Americaās postāWorld War II official enemy, and Americans were made to believe that the communists were coming to get them. Truman clearly understood that in order to get Americans to accept the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state, he had to āscare the hellā out of the American people.
There is something important to keep in mind here. Intervention, empire, and a national-security state are different concepts. It is possible for a nation to be a national-security state without having a foreign policy of intervention and empire. North Korea is an example.
But after World War II, the United States went in all three directions. It became a national-security state and almost immediately it began intervening in foreign countries, under the guise of fighting the communists. Thatās how the U.S. intervention in the Korean War, which was always just a civil war, was justified ā to prevent an eventual communist takeover of the United States. It was also how U.S, intervention in the Vietnam War, which also was just a civil war, was justified ā to keep the dominoes from falling to the Reds, with the final domino being the United States.
But it wasnāt just intervention that characterized Cold War America. It was also empire, not by following the old British Empire model but rather by following the model of empire established by the Soviets in Eastern Europe, where the Soviets installed regimes ruled by locals who would follow orders from the Soviets.
Thatās what the U.S. coups in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and others were all about ā the destruction of independent regimes, even democratically elected ones, and the installation of local dictatorships that would follow orders from the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, budgets were soaring throughout the Cold War for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.
Ā New enemiesĀ
In 1991 the Cold War suddenly and unexpectedly came to an end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany and Eastern Europe, and the normalization of relations between Russia and the West. The justification for Americaās national-security state way of life had come to an end.
The Pentagon and the CIA were not ready, however, to go quietly into the night and permit the restoration of a limited-government republic to our land. Almost immediately, they initiated a series of interventions in the Middle East that were virtually certain to produce āblowbackā in the form of terrorist retaliation: The Persian Gulf intervention, followed by 11 years of brutal sanctions on Iraq, which killed tens of thousands of Iraqi children every year. UN Ambassador Madeleine Albrightās infamous declaration that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions was āworth it.ā The stationing of UN troops near the holiest lands in the Muslim religion, knowing full well how that would be perceived by people of Muslim faith. They also continued Americaās unconditional financial and military support to the Israeli government.
All that interventionism produced the inevitable terrorist retaliation, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center; the attack on the USSĀ Cole,Ā the U.S. warship that was passing near Yemen; the attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa; and then the 9/11 attacks.
Refusing to acknowledge that such attacks were the inevitable result of U.S. intervention in the Middle East and insisting instead that they were motivated by foreign hatred for Americaās āfreedom and values,ā U.S. officials doubled down with postā9/11 regime-change invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two interventions produced nothing but massive death, destruction, and suffering, not to mention the rise of ISIS, which was then used as a justification for intervening in Syriaās revolution, which U.S. officials had encouraged as part of their foreign policy of intervention in the Middle East. There was also the Libya regime-change operation, which, in combination with the Syrian and Iraqi interventions, produced a massive refugee crisis for Europe.
Meanwhile, what Adams predicted in 1821 has come to pass. The federal government has become a dictatress. How else to describe a regime that wields the omnipotent power to assassinate its own people or simply take them into military custody and hold them indefinitely as āenemy combatantsā and torture them for as long as officials want? How else to describe a regime that wields the omnipotent power to seize peopleās money and other assets under the so-called drug war without ever charging them with a crime?
The good news is that there is a solution to all this mayhem, death, destruction, and loss of liberty, if Americans can only gather the will to embrace it. That solution is two-fold: to restore Americaās founding principles of a noninterventionist foreign policy and Americaās founding principle of a limited-government republic. If American people were to do that, they could lead the world out of the statist morass in which it finds itself.
This article was originally published in the July 2018 issue of FFFās monthly journal,Ā Future of Freedom.
Mike German, Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, interviewed Friedman on August 4, 2014. Read an edited transcript of the full interviewĀ here.
Ben Friedman discussesĀ fear managementĀ in national security, arguing that overrating the threat of terrorism creates costs to society, both financial and to our civil liberties. Political entrepreneurs exploit this overwrought fear, Friedman argues, which cramps democratic debate. He asserts that public policy should be driven by risk rather than vulnerability
Ben Friedman estimates that homeland and national security spending approaches a trillion dollars annually, including wars and veteransā expenses. CitingĀ researchĀ byĀ Steve PinkerĀ that shows that the world is less violent than previous eras, Friedman argues that the U.S. is actually quite safe, which makes such exorbitant spending unnecessary.
Ben Friedman explains the difficulty of completely divorcing intelligence agencies from political influences. He disputes contemporary statements by intelligence officials that suggest the world today is more dangerous than previous generations.
Ben Friedman points to the work ofĀ Sherman Kent, a former CIA analyst, who suggested that the CIA is driven primarily by the need to be right. Friedman suggests that the different voices in threat analysis could provide dissents that might temper the agencies; tendencies toward threat inflation.
Ben Friedman argues that excessive secrecy in government stifles debate, which leads to ill-considered policies. Friedman finds Congress less willing to conduct effective oversight of national security actions for a variety of reasons.
Ben Friedman describes the debate over U.S. grand strategy, pittingĀ realistsĀ who argue for a restrained foreign policy against a bi-partisan primacy consensus that advocates for interventionist policies. Friedman says the primacy view gets us in āavoidable fights,ā and incurs unaccounted costs to society. Moreover, there is little social science evidence to support that U.S. power projection is making us safer.
Ben Friedman describes the robust tools Congress has to conduct oversight, but suggests its failure to assert its power in national security issues has led to malfunction of constitutional balances. Friedman also feels the press has generally performed poorly in checking abuse, though he cites exceptions such as Dana PriestāsĀ coverageĀ of secret CIA detention sites.
Ben Friedman discusses President Obamaās habit of selecting foreign policy hawks for leadership positions in the national security and intelligence community. Friedman laments that while many academic researchers support a restrained foreign policy, few such advocates find positions in government.
The stated aims of theĀ foreign policy of the Donald Trump administrationĀ include a focus on security, by fightingĀ terroristsĀ abroad and strengthening border defenses and immigration controls; an expansion of theĀ U.S. military; an “America First” approach to trade; and diplomacy whereby “old enemies become friends”.[1]Ā TheĀ foreign policy positions expressed by Trump during his presidential campaignĀ changed frequently, making it “difficult to glean a political agenda, or even a set of clear, core policy values ahead of his presidency.”[2]Ā During hisĀ presidential inaugurationĀ speech, Trump said that during his presidency the U.S. would “not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow.” He also stated that his administration would “seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world,” and that he understands the “right of all nations to put their own interests first.”[3]
During the 2016 election campaign, Trump “repeatedly defined American global interests almost purely in economic terms,” with the nation’s “roles as a peacekeeper, as a provider of a nuclear deterrent against adversaries like North Korea, as an advocate of human rights and as a guarantor of allies’ borders” being “quickly reduced to questions of economic benefit to the United States.”[4]Ā He also repeatedly called for allied countries, including Germany, Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, to compensate the United States for helping protect their nations,[5]Ā and suggested that his willingness to defend a country might depend on how much that country was willing to “pay us to save them.”[6]Ā Trump and his advisors continued this theme throughout the presidency, emphasizing their view that other countries need to increase their financial commitment to their own defense or compensate the United States for providing it.[7]
Trump also supported a robust national defense during the 2016 election[8][9][10]Ā and in his first budget proposal as president in March 2017, Trump proposed a $54 billion (10%) increase in defense spending, to a total of $639 billion for fiscal year 2018. He said the increase would be needed to fight terrorism, improve troop readiness, and build new ships and planes and would be paid for by deep cuts to other agencies, including a 28% cut from the State Department budget. He also requested an additional $30 billion for the Defense Department for the remainder of fiscal year 2017.[11]
As a presidential candidate, Trump emphasized a “get-tough” approach toward suspected terrorists. He called for the resumption ofĀ waterboardingĀ “and much worse”.[12][13]Ā He repeatedly expressed support for the use ofĀ tortureĀ by the U.S. for the purpose of trying to get information from suspected terrorists, and said the law should be changed to allow waterboarding and other forms of torture.[12][14]Ā However, after his election, Trump stated that he would defer to the views of then-Secretary of DefenseĀ James Mattis, who opposed waterboarding and torture.[15]
Upon taking office, Trump relied more on his White House advisors rather than theĀ State DepartmentĀ to advise him on international relations. He initially chose formerĀ ExxonMobilĀ CEOĀ Rex TillersonĀ asĀ Secretary of State. Tillerson did not have previous government or diplomatic experience, but due to ExxonMobil’s international activities he had experience and contacts in many other countries, particularly Russia.[16]Ā In many cases Trump has given important foreign policy assignments to advisors within the White House, particularly former chief political strategistĀ Steve BannonĀ and senior advisorĀ Jared Kushner.[17]Ā Trump has made significant decisions, such as aĀ proposed travel banĀ from certain countries and a counter-terrorism strike in Yemen, which was made without any input from the State Department.[18][19]Ā Budget cuts and reliance on advisors led to media reports that the State Department has been noticeably “sidelined” during the administration.[17][18]Ā The State Department normally has two deputy secretaries of state and six undersecretaries, regarded as senior posts;[20][21]Ā by March 2017 no nominations had been submitted for any of those positions.[22]
An August 2017 Pew Research Poll found that 15 percent of all Americans, and 31 percent of Republicans, said they agreed with President Trump on “nearly all issues”.[23]Ā By the closing months of 2017, a survey by theĀ Chicago Council on Global AffairsĀ think tankĀ found that President Trump’s most passionate supporters solidly supported his core views on foreign policy, butĀ RepublicansĀ with less favorable views of the president are far less enthusiastic and their attitudes more closely match with the overall population.[24]
Contents
Americas
On March 3, 2019,Ā National Security AdvisorĀ John BoltonĀ invoked theĀ Monroe DoctrineĀ in describing the Trump administration’s policy in the Americas, saying “In this administration, we’re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine…It’s been the objective of American presidents going back to [President]Ā Ronald ReaganĀ to have a completely democratic hemisphere.”[25][26]
President Trump and Argentine PresidentĀ Mauricio Macri, April 2017
President Trump hosted President Macri in Washington, D.C. in April 2017. They met at theĀ White HouseĀ on April 27 to talk about trade.[27]Ā When theĀ ARAĀ San JuanĀ submarine went missing on November 15, 2017 during a routine patrol in the South Atlantic off the coast of Argentina, President Trump offered the help of the United States to find the submarine.
President Trump and Brazilian PresidentĀ Jair Bolsonaro, March 2019
The two countries re-approached with the victory of the right-wing president,Ā Jair BolsonaroĀ in Brazil. On the first official visit of the Brazilian president to the United States in March 2019, Trump announced Brazil asĀ Major non-NATO ally. In May, the U.S. government, through Kimberly Breier, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, announced formal support for Brazil’s entry into theĀ OECD.[28][29][30][31][32]
President Trump and Canadian Prime MinisterĀ Justin Trudeau, February 2017
President Trump met withĀ Canadian Prime MinisterĀ Justin TrudeauĀ in February 2017 at the White House. Trudeau was the third world leader that Trump hosted since his election as president, after the United Kingdom’s Theresa May and Japan’s Shinzo Abe.[33]Ā At the meeting Trump claimed that he viewed the United States’ relationship withĀ CanadaĀ as being different from its relationship with Mexico, and said he only foresaw minor adjustments to the Canadian side ofĀ NAFTA.[34]Ā At the meeting Trump and Trudeau also discussed increased cooperation at theĀ CanadaāUnited States border, combating opioid abuse, clean energy, and establishing a joint council to promote women in business.[35]
In April 2017 the Trump administration took action on the longstandingĀ CanadaāUnited States softwood lumber dispute, raising the possibility of a trade war. Following Trump’s comment that Canada’s lumber trade practices are unfair, the Commerce Department announced plans to impose a retroactive duty of 30-40% on Canadian wood shipments to the United States. Canada’s minister for trade said, “Canada will not be deterred and will vigorously defend our industry.”[36]Ā The Canadian dollar fell to a 14-month low on the announcement.[37]
On June 20, 2019, Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met and held “positive” talks at the White House on topics regarding ratifying theĀ USMCA, the detentions ofĀ HuaweiĀ CFOĀ Meng WanzhouĀ and Canadian nationalsĀ Michael SpavorĀ and Michael Kovrig, confronting China, and tariff negotiations. Trump called Trudeau a “friend” and, following Trudeau’s trip, both Canadian and U.S. officials and media generally considered the talks constructive and helped thaw relations between the two allies, which had noticeably chilled in the early years of Trump’s presidency.[38]
Caribbean
During a summer 2017 meeting about immigration, Trump objected to receiving immigrants fromĀ Haiti, reportedly saying “they all haveĀ AIDS.” The White House denied the report.[39]Ā During a meeting with congressional leaders on January 11, 2018, Trump complained about the number of immigrants from Haiti, saying “Why do we need more Haitians, take them out.”[40]Ā He then referred to Haiti andĀ El Salvador, as well as unspecified African nations, as “shithole countries”, although specific facts and details about these remarks were disputed.[40]
During the campaign, Trump expressed his opposition to the restoration of full diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba achieved in July 2015.[41]Ā Trump said that he would only restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba if the Cuban regime met his demands to restoreĀ political freedomsĀ and freeĀ political prisoners.[41]Ā This represented a shift from his position expressed in September 2015 when he said that the opening with Cuba was “fine. But we should have made a better deal.”[41]Ā Trump also said that he opposed theĀ Cuban Adjustment Act, which allows any Cuban who reaches U.S. soil to remain in the country legally and apply for residency.[42]
On June 16, 2017, President Trump announced that he was cancelling the Obama administration’s previous deals withĀ Cuba, while also expressing hope that a new deal could be negotiated between Cuba and the United States.[43][44]
In August 2019, Trump expressed interest in buying the territory ofĀ GreenlandĀ from the countryĀ Denmark. In reaction, Greenland’s foreign ministry declared that the territory was not for sale.[46]Ā Citing Denmark’s reluctance to discuss the purchase, days later Trump canceled a scheduled September trip to Copenhagen.[47]
During the campaign Trump emphasized U.S. border security andĀ illegal immigrationĀ as signature issues.[48]Ā He stated, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. …. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. Their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”[9]Ā He also talked about drugs and infectious diseases “pouring across the border”.[49]
In campaign speeches Trump repeatedly pledged to build aĀ wall along the U.S.’s southern border, saying that Mexico would pay for its construction through increased border-crossing fees and NAFTA tariffs.[50][51][52]Ā Trump said his proposed wall would be “a real wall. Not a toy wall like we have now.”[53]Ā After a meeting with Mexican PresidentĀ Enrique PeƱa NietoĀ on August 31, 2016, Trump said that they “didn’t discuss” who would pay for the border wall.[54]Ā Nieto contradicted that later that day, saying that he at the start of the meeting “made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall”.[55]Ā Later that day, Trump reiterated his position that Mexico will pay to build an “impenetrable” wall on the Southern border.[56]
Trump’s rhetoric as a candidate and as president “cranked up the tension in US-Mexico relations to a high not seen in decades”.[62]Ā On January 25, 2017, Trump signed an executive order calling for “immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border”.[63]Ā He also reiterated that Mexico will eventually pay for the wall. Mexican President PeƱa Nieto had been scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on January 31. However, on January 26 PeƱa Nieto called off the visit, not citing a reason. The two leaders spoke by telephone on January 27. In statements afterward they acknowledged their differences on the issue and said they intend to work them out, as well as other issues such as security and trade.[64]
According to a poll regarding the Trump Administration by the National Research Inc and The Polling Company more Americans agree that legal immigration is at the right levels but want illegal immigration curbed. The 1,201 that were polled believe that President Trump’s focus on illegals has cut those crossing United States borders without approval.[65]Ā It has been reported that the appeal of President Trump’s anti-NAFTA messages has been dominant among working-class white families in the United States. These families do not have the capability to provide for the kind of education their children need in order to successfully live in this modern day economy.[66]
Polls also show 5 percent of Mexicans trust President Trump’s decisions and role in international affairs. The survey by the Pew Research Center said 93 percent of Mexicans had “no confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing regarding world affairs.[67]” The president’s decision for a wall along the Mexican border had a proposed 2018 budget that included a request for $1.6 billion to begin construction. A November 2017Ā Quinnipiac University PollĀ found that 64% of voters oppose building the wall and data showed only 33% supported the idea.[68]
Funding for the border wall remained a divisive topic well into 2019, with aĀ partial government shutdownĀ beginning in December 2018 after Trump refused to sign a budget bill that didn’t have appropriated funding for the border wall.
President TrumpĀ hostedĀ President Pedro Pablo KuczynskiĀ in February 2017 to discussĀ issues in Latin America. Trump has expressed gratitude for Peru’s close relations with the United States in protecting interests in Latin America, such asĀ sanctions against VenezuelaĀ and corruption probes. Kuczynski brought up a minor purchase of military equipment from the United States for Peru.
Kuczynski later recalled that Trump privately mentioned to Kuczynski that “You don’t look a day over 90.” Kuczynski was 79 at the time.[76]
Trump delivers remarks to theĀ Venezuelan AmericanĀ community in Miami, Florida, February 18, 2019
In August 2017 followingĀ months of protests in VenezuelaĀ against PresidentĀ NicolĆ”s MaduroĀ and theĀ election of a Constituent AssemblyĀ which consolidated Maduro’s power,[77]Ā the Trump administration described the Venezuelan government as a “dictatorship”.[78]Ā President Trump further stated on 11 August 2017, days after theĀ Constituent National AssemblyĀ was sworn in, that “Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering, and they are dying” and that the United States had “many options for Venezuela”, including a possible “military option”.[78]Ā At the time, Trump’s advisers, including then-United States National Security AdvisorĀ H. R. McMaster, strongly recommended to President Trump to not pursue a military option in Venezuela, explaining that Latin American governments were against foreign intervention in the region, though Trump raised some questions about the option.[79]Ā However, when meeting with Latin American leaders during theĀ seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump discussed possible United States military intervention in Venezuela, to which they all denied the offer.[79]
On January 23, 2019, during theĀ 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Venezuela broke ties with the United States following Trump’s announcement of recognizingĀ Juan GuaidĆ³, the leader of Venezuela’sĀ National Assembly, as the interim President of Venezuela.[80]Ā On February 18, 2019 Trump warned members of Venezuela’s military to renounce loyalty to NicolĆ”s Maduro.[81]Ā The U.S. continued to show support for Juan GuaidĆ³ during the attemptedĀ April 30 uprising.
Venezuela is one of the three countries condemned in John Bolton’s “Troika of Tyranny” speech in Miami.[82]
This section needs to beĀ updated.Ā Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.Ā (September 2019)
On August 21, 2017, President Trump stated that he wanted to expand the American presence in Afghanistan, without giving details on how.[83]Ā Trump did not formulate any deadlines or specific purposes to be met, only stating that a U.S. withdrawal was no option now because it would play into the hands of terrorists and put at risk the safety of the U.S. and its allies.[84]Ā Trump did say that presently 20 U.S.-designated terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, this statement contradicted the official U.S. government list, which only lists 13 such organizations there, according toĀ The Washington Post.[85]Ā TalibanĀ spokesmanĀ Zabiullah MujahidĀ condemned Trump’s speech: “It looks like America does not want to put an end to its longest war and instead of realizing the realities, is still arrogant on its might and force”.[85]
On September 19, 2017, the Trump administration deployed another 3,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. This added to the approximately 11,000 U.S. troops already serving in Afghanistan, bringing the total to at least 14,000 U.S. troops stationed in the country.[86]
On 2 December 2016, as president-elect, he accepted a congratulatory telephone call fromĀ Taiwanese presidentĀ Tsai Ing-wen. That was the first such contact with Taiwan by a U.S. president-elect or president since 1979 and provoked the People’s Republic of China to lodge a diplomatic protest (“stern representations”).[92][93]Ā Trump suggested he didn’t feel bound by America’s traditionalĀ ‘one China’ policyĀ but considered it open to negotiation.[93]
At his confirmation hearing in January 2017, Secretary of State-designateĀ Rex TillersonĀ expressed strong opposition to the Chinese practice since 2014 of building artificial islands in theĀ South China SeaĀ as a way of claiming sovereignty over it, saying China should be blocked from accessing the islands. Portions of the South China Sea are claimed as territorial waters by multiple nations including China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines.[94]Ā On 23 January 2017, White House spokesmanĀ Sean SpicerĀ said “It’s a question of if [theĀ Spratly Islands] are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country.”[95]
On 9 February, Trump reaffirmed American commitment to the One-China policy in a telephone call with Chinese PresidentĀ Xi Jinping. The call was described as cordial and as “putting an end to the extended chill” in the relationship between the two countries.[97]
The relations significantly deteriorated in 2018 and in 2019 when Trump launched aĀ trade war against China, banned US companies from selling equipment toĀ Huawei, increased visa restrictions on Chinese nationality students and scholars and designated China as a “currency manipulator“.[98][99][100][101]
President Trump greets Indian Prime MinisterĀ Narendra ModiĀ at the White House, June 2017
During the campaign Trump spoke favorably of Indian Prime MinisterĀ Narendra ModiĀ and expressed a desire for a closer alliance with India.[102]Ā He told a campaign rally ofĀ Indian-AmericansĀ that under his administration, relations with India would be “the best ever”.[103]Ā Trump and Modi met at the White House in June 2017, reaffirming the strong partnership between the two nations, especially in defense, maritime security and counterterrorism.[104]
President Trump and Japanese Prime MinisterĀ ShinzÅ Abe, February 2017
During the campaign Trump accused Japan of unfair trade practices, “taking our jobs”, and of currency manipulation. He suggested Japan should pay the U.S. for its military presence in Japan, and at one point suggested that Japan should develop nuclear weapons to defend itself against North Korea.[105]
Japanese Prime MinisterĀ ShinzÅ AbeĀ met with President-elect Trump atĀ Trump TowerĀ shortly after his election ā the first foreign leader to do so. He said Trump was “a leader in whom I can have confidence”. However, after the meeting Trump continued to complain about Japan’s currency and its auto industry.[105]
In January 2017 President Trump formally renounced theĀ Trans-Pacific Partnership, in which Japan would have been a key player, but left open the option of bilateral trade negotiations.[106]
During a visit to Japan in January 2017, Defense Secretary Mattis reaffirmed that the U.S. was committed to the defense of Japan.[105]
In February 2017 Abe met with Trump in Washington, followed by a Florida golf excursion. Trump promised to strengthen ties between the two nations and said the U.S. is committed to the security of Japan, saying that the alliance between the two countries is “the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Pacific region”.[106]
President Trump and North Korean LeaderĀ Kim Jong-un, June 2018
During the campaign Trump said that he would be willing to meetĀ North Korean supreme leaderĀ Kim Jong-un, whom he described as a “maniac” who also deserves credit for being able to overcome his rivals in order to succeedĀ his father.[107][108]Ā He indicated that he did not want to get involved in any conflict between North andĀ South Korea, an attitude which resulted in an editorial in the North Korean state media that hailed him as a “wise politician” and a “far-sighted presidential candidate” who could be good for North Korea.[109]Ā In the wake of theĀ January 2016 North Korean nuclear testĀ Trump advocated placing greater pressure on China to rein in its ally North Korea.[110][111]Ā During the campaign and the early months of his presidency, he said he hoped that China would help to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and missile tests.[112]
Tension between the two countries increased in April 2017. Speaking in advance of a visit from Chinese leaderĀ Xi Jinping, President Trump told theĀ Financial Times, “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you.”[113]Ā On April 8, 2017, the US Navy said theĀ USSĀ Carl VinsonĀ strike group was sailing to the Western Pacific from Singapore, and two days later, President Trump toldĀ Fox Business: “We are sending an armada, very powerful” towards the Korean peninsula.[114]Ā His comment, and its apparent confirmation by Defense Department officials, “fueled a war frenzy at major newspapers and networks” and led to the North Korean government warning of a possible thermonuclear war.[114]Ā However, on April 18 the Pentagon clarified that the strike group had instead headed south for scheduled training exercises with theĀ Australian navyĀ but would be arriving at the Korean peninsula the following week.[115][116]Ā Meanwhile, on April 16Ā Vice PresidentĀ Mike PenceĀ visited South Korea, viewedĀ the Demilitarized ZoneĀ which separates North from South Korea, and warned that the U.S. “era of strategic patience” toward North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs is over. He added that “all options are on the table.”[112]Ā The same day the North Korean government launchedĀ a missile test, which failed but which Pence described as a provocation.[117]Ā Trump continued to express the hope that China would help to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.[112]
In July 2017 North Korea tested two long-range missiles, identified by Western observers asĀ intercontinental ballistic missilesĀ potentially capable of reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. mainland.[118][119]Ā In August Trump significantly escalated his rhetoric against North Korea, saying that further provocation against the U.S. will be met with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”[120]Ā In response Kim threatened to direct its next missile test toward Guam. Trump doubled down on his “fire and fury” warning, saying that “maybe that statement wasn’t tough enough” and adding that if North Korea took steps to attack Guam, “Things will happen to them like they never thought possible.”[121]Ā North Korea continued its missile tests, and in late August the regime launched a ballistic missile which traveled over northern Japan before coming down in the Pacific Ocean.[122]Ā In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2017, Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea if the United States were “forced to defend itself or its allies”; he repeated his recent nickname for Kim Jong-Un as “Rocket Man”.[123]
In March 2018 a South Korean delegation to the White House gave Trump a message from Kim, suggesting a meeting between Kim and Trump.[124]Ā The South Koreans said Kim was willing to talk about his nuclear and missile programs. Trump immediately accepted the invitation to meet “at a place and time to be determined.”[125]Ā On May 10 it was announced that the meeting would take place on June 12 in Singapore.[126]Ā As a gesture of good will, Kim freed three U.S. citizens being held in North Korean prisons.[127]Ā However, as the time neared, North Korean officials failed to meet with their American counterparts to plan the meeting.[128]Ā On May 24 Trump called off the meeting, citing what he perceived as “tremendous anger and open hostility” in North Korea’s most recent statement.[128]Ā A few days later planning for the meeting was resumed.
On June 12, 2018, after several rounds of preliminary staff-level meetings,Ā Trump and Kim met at a hotel in Singapore.[129]Ā They talked one-on-one with only interpreters present, then had a working lunch along with staff and advisors.[130]Ā They signed a joint statement agreeing to new peaceful relations, security guarantees for North Korea, reaffirmation of North Korea’s promise to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, recovery of soldiers’ remains, and follow-up negotiations between high-level officials.[131]Ā At a follow-up press conference, Trump announced that the U.S. will stop holding joint military exercises with South Korea, calling them “provocative”.[132]
In June 2019, President Trump stepped into North Korean territory, becoming the first sitting U.S. President to do so since theĀ Korean War
A January 2019 American intelligence community assessment found that North Korea was unlikely to relinquish its nuclear arsenal, directly contradicting a core tenet of Trump’s stated foreign policy.[133]
In late February 2019, President Trump met with Chairman Kim Jong-un at aĀ summitĀ inĀ HanoiĀ for talks. On February 28, the White House announced that the summit was called off after negotiations with the North Koreans failed to reach an agreement.[134]
Following theĀ 2019 G20 Osaka summit, Trump arranged for a meeting with Chairman Kim at theĀ Korean Demilitarized ZoneĀ alongside South Korean PresidentĀ Moon Jae-in. The one-dayĀ trilateral summitĀ at the DMZ was held on June 30, in which Trump became the first U.S. president to step foot on North Korean soil while in office. Trump and Kim also pledged to jump-start negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program after talks collapsed during the February 2019 Hanoi summit.[135]
South Korea
Trump with South Korean PresidentĀ Moon Jae-inĀ in Seoul, November 7, 2017
During the campaign, Trump said Pakistan is “the most dangerous country in the world” and should denuclearize.[136]Ā But according to the Pakistan government, in a cordial post-election telephone conversation with Pakistan’s Prime MinisterĀ Nawaz Sharif, Trump lavished praise on Pakistan and its “fantastic” people, said he would love to visit the country, and offered to help Pakistan solve any outstanding problems.[137]Ā After taking office, President Trump indicated that Pakistan will be among the countries whose citizens will have to go through an “extreme vetting” process before entering the United States.[138]Ā On July 2, 2019,Ā State DepartmentĀ designatedĀ Baloch Liberation ArmyĀ (BLA), a separatist militant group that aims to separateĀ BalochistanĀ from Pakistan, as a terrorist organization.[139]
Filipino PresidentĀ Rodrigo DuterteĀ with President Trump in Manila, November 13, 2017
U.S.-Philippines relations had taken a turn for the worse with the election of Philippines PresidentĀ Rodrigo DuterteĀ in June 2016. Duterte expressed strong hostility toward then-President Obama and threatened to sever the long-standing ties between the two countries due to the latter’s criticism on the issue of human rights in Duterte’s policy on theĀ War on Drugs. On December 2, 2016, President-elect Trump accepted a congratulatory call from Duterte. A statement from the Trump team said the two leaders “noted the long history of friendship and cooperation between the two nations, and agreed that the two governments would continue to work together closely on matters of shared interest and concern”. Duterte claimed afterward that Trump had praised Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs” which has killed thousands of people without trial, and that Trump said the Philippines are “doing it as a sovereign nation, the right way.”[140]
President Trump and French PresidentĀ Emmanuel Macron, April 2018
In their first telephone call, President Trump told French PresidentĀ FranƧois HollandeĀ that he “loved France” and that there was “no more beautiful country than France”.[141]Ā However, in his 2017Ā CPACĀ speech, President Trump said, “France is no longer France” due to terrorism.[141][142]Ā In response, President Hollande said allies should not criticize each other,[142]Ā and he invited him to visitĀ Disneyland Paris.[141]
In advance of theĀ 2017 French presidential electionĀ Trump was reported to have expressed support forĀ Marine Le Pen, calling her the “strongest candidate”, although he did not explicitly endorse her.[143]Ā However, when meeting with newly elected French presidentĀ Emmanuel MacronĀ in Brussels in May 2017 he said to Macron “you were my guy”, stating that media reports had been wrong.[144]
Trump honored the invitation of French president Emmanuel Macron to attend the annualĀ Bastille Day Military ParadeĀ on 14 July 2017 in Paris.[145]
President Trump and German ChancellorĀ Angela Merkel, March 2017
During the campaign Trump was critical of German chancellorĀ Angela MerkelĀ and her handling of theĀ European migrant crisis, saying “Everyone thought she was a really great leader and now she’s turned out to be this catastrophic leader. And she’ll be out if they don’t have a revolution.”[146]Ā In July 2016, German Foreign MinisterĀ Frank-Walter SteinmeierĀ stated that he was concerned about what he sees as Trump’s contradictory promises to “make America strong again” while simultaneously reducing involvement overseas.[147]Ā Steinmeier said that Trump’s proposed policies “would be dangerous not only for the United States, but for Europe and the rest of the world as well”.[147]
After becoming president, Trump met with Merkel at the White House on March 17, 2017. The meeting was described as “awkward”; Trump failed to shake hands with Merkel for a photo op, and he made a jokeĀ about wiretappingĀ which fell flat.[148][149]Ā The two “politely disagreed on everything from immigration to free trade and the value of seeking multinational agreements.”[150]Ā The next day Trump tweeted, “Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!”[7][151]Ā He also tried to get Merkel to talk about bilateral trade issues, but she pointed out that EU members only negotiate as a unit.[152]
In May 2017 at a meeting with European leaders in Brussels, Trump denounced Germany concerning the trade deficit as “bad, very bad”, adding “Look at the millions of cars they sell in the US. Terrible. We will stop this.” He has threatened to impose a 35% tax on German car imports.[152]Ā A few days later Merkel suggested that Germany and Europe can no longer fully rely on the United States; and saying “we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands”, also hinting to theĀ decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. However she underlined the importance of friendly relations with the United States, the United Kingdom as well as Russia.[153]
On May 24, 2017,Ā Pope FrancisĀ met with Trump inĀ Vatican CityĀ where they discussed the contributions ofĀ CatholicsĀ to the United States and to the world. Trump and the Pope discussed issues of mutual concern including how religious communities can combat human suffering in crisis regions, such asĀ Syria,Ā Libya, andĀ ISIL-controlled territory. Trump and Pope Francis also discussedĀ terrorismĀ and the radicalization of young people.
The Trump administration’s approach towardsĀ Viktor OrbĆ”n‘s “illiberal”[155]Ā right-wingĀ governmentĀ has been supportive, but, according toĀ The Guardian, “ineffective” in advancing American interests.[156]
Italy
President Trump and Italian Prime MinisterĀ Paolo Gentiloni, April 2017
Italy was the firstĀ EuropeanĀ country to be visited by President Trump. He went to Italy in May 2017, during his first presidential trip outside theĀ U.S..[157]Ā During his trip to Italy, Trump held a bilateral meeting withĀ Pope Francis;[158]Ā and met Italian PresidentĀ Sergio MattarellaĀ and Prime MinisterĀ Paolo Gentiloni. Gentiloni was also hosted by Trump at theĀ White HouseĀ in April 2017, a few weeks before Trump took part in theĀ 43rd G7 summitĀ held in Italy.[159]Ā Trump has often stated that Italy is a “key ally of America inĀ EuropeĀ and theĀ Mediterranean SeaĀ and a strategic partner in theĀ War on Terrorism.”[160]
During the Trump administration,Ā PolandĀ and the United States continued to exhibit warm military, diplomatic, and economic bilateral relations. This was bolstered by the broadly sharedĀ neo-nationalistĀ values between President Donald Trump and President of PolandĀ Andrzej DudaĀ along with Poland’s desire for strengthened military ties with the United States in order to counterĀ RussianĀ influence in Europe, particularly following the 2014Ā Russian annexation of Crimea.[161]
In July 2017, in his second foreign trip, President Donald Trump visited Poland where he met with the President Andrzej Duda. President Trump and President Duda then held a joint press conference in theĀ Royal Castle, Warsaw. President Trump thanked the Polish people and President Duda for the warm welcome he received inĀ Warsaw.[162]Ā InĀ Warsaw‘s Krasinski Square Trump said, “Our freedom, our civilization and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture and memory… Poland is in our heart and Poland is in that fight.”[163]Ā He also said: “Our strong alliance withĀ PolandĀ andĀ NATOĀ remains critical to deterring conflict and ensuring that war between great powers never again ravagesĀ Europe, and that the world will be a safer and better place. America is committed to maintaining peace and security inĀ CentralĀ andĀ Eastern Europe“.[162]Ā Trump says the U.S. stands firmly behind NATO’s Article 5, which says an attack against one member is attack against all.[163]Ā Trump describedĀ PolandĀ as a long-time U.S. ally that is “an example for others who seek freedom and who wish to summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization.”[164]Ā He also attended in theĀ Three Seas InitiativeĀ summit 2017 in Warsaw. People on the Krasinski Square greeted the President Trump, chanting repeatedly “Donald Trump” and “USA”. Thousands of Polish people greeted Trump on the route from theĀ Royal CastleĀ to theĀ Marriott HotelĀ and from the Marriott toĀ Warsaw Chopin Airport.Ā Razem, a Polish left-wing political party, organized a protest against Trump. Protesters were dressed as handmaids fromĀ Margaret Atwood‘s dystopian novelĀ The Handmaid’s Tale, as a symbol ofĀ women’s rightsĀ being endangered both in Poland and theĀ United States.[165]Ā [166]Ā [167]Ā [168]
In June 2019, during a trip to the United States to celebrate the 20th anniversary ofĀ Poland’s membership in NATOĀ and the 30th anniversary ofĀ communism’s downfall in the country, President Andrzej Duda visited theĀ White HouseĀ where he and President Trump signed a joint defense agreement to increase military cooperation. According to the agreement, which Trump called a “statement” on the relationship between the two countries, Poland will pay for an additional 1,000 U.S. troops to be stationed in Poland on a rotational basis. The force will be apportioned from the 52,000-strong contingent of U.S. forces in Germany and will include special operations troops, drones and other military hardware. In a separate deal, Poland ordered 32Ā F-35Ā fighter jets from the U.S.; Trump celebrated the agreement with two F-35 jets conductingĀ flybysĀ over the White House in a rare U.S. military display.[169][170]Ā Also on that day, Polish state-owned natural gas companyĀ PGNiGĀ signed an agreement with U.S. company Venture Global LNG to buy 1.5 million metric tons ofĀ liquefied natural gasĀ per year as part of an initiative to seek alternative supplies of gas other than Russia’sĀ Gazprom. The deal is seen as part of the Trump administration’s “energy dominance” economic policy, in which the U.S. slashes domestic regulations on energy production to boost oil and gas exports to allies and trade partners, such as Poland, serving as an alternative to Russian gas pipelines.[171]
Trump has praised Russian PresidentĀ Vladimir PutinĀ repeatedly over a series of years.[172]Ā During the campaign his praise blossomed into what many observers termed a “bromance“.[172]Ā In particular, Trump praised Putin as a “strong leader” and said that he expected to “get along very well” with Putin. Trump often described Putin as “a better leader” than Obama.[172]Ā Putin praised Trump as “a very bright and talented man, no doubt about that,” and Trump claimed Putin called him a “genius,” a mischaracterization based on an incorrect translation.[173][174][175]Ā When asked about allegations that Putin hasĀ killed journalistsĀ and political opponents, Trump brushed them off, implying that the United States has done the same thing.[172][176]
President Trump and Russian PresidentĀ Vladimir Putin, July 2017
On February 6, 2017, talking toĀ Bill O’ReillyĀ onĀ Fox News, Trump questioned the veracity of O’Reillyā²s claim that ā³within 24 hours of you on the phone with the Russian leader, the pro-Russian forcesĀ step[ed] up the violenceĀ in Ukraineā³. He said he ā³respectedā³ Putin and dismissed O’Reillyā²s statement that Putin was a ā³killerā³,[184][185]Ā which promptedĀ CNNĀ to opine that Trump had “appeared to equate U.S. actions with theĀ authoritarianĀ regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”[186]
On February 16, Secretary of StateĀ Rex TillersonĀ had a meeting with his Russian counterpartĀ Sergey LavrovĀ inĀ Bonn, Germany; Tillerson told the press afterwards, “As we search for new common ground, we expect Russia to honor its commitment to theĀ Minsk agreementsĀ and work to de-escalate the violence in Ukraine”.[187]Ā Sergey Lavrov said the meeting was productive, and added that Moscow was ready to work with Washington on all issues as soon as Donald Trump’s foreign policy team was fully formed.[188]Ā On the same day Secretary of DefenseĀ James Mattis, declared that the United States was not currently prepared to collaborate with Russia on military matters, including future anti-ISIL US operations.[189]
Michael IsikoffĀ ofĀ Yahoo! NewsĀ reported in June 2017 that during the early weeks of the Trump administration, State Department employees were told to develop proposals to lift the sanctions which had been imposed on Russia after its military incursions intoĀ UkraineĀ and its interference in the November election. No action or return would be expected from Russia in return for removing the sanctions.[190]Ā The proposals were dropped after resistance from State Department employees and a realization that such an action would look bad politically in light of the investigations into a Russia connection to the Trump campaign. A former State Department who retired in February said, “What was troubling about these stories is that suddenly I was hearing that we were preparing to rescind sanctions in exchange for, well, nothing.”[191]
According to a poll conducted by the SSRS, approximately 70% of Americans find that the federal investigation into Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election in the US should be able to look into President Donald Trump’s finances. 60% of those polled view this as a serious matter that should be fully investigated, and it was recorded that 38% view it as a way to discredit the Presidency of Donald Trump.[192]Ā In an approximate two-to-one margin, those polled disapprove of the way the President is dealing the Russian investigation.
As president, Trump has continued to advocate for U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Islamic State terror organization. At his first direct meeting and encounter with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he approved a collaborative plan for a limited cease-fire in the Syrian civil war.[193]
Trump and Putin met in aĀ summitĀ inĀ HelsinkiĀ on July 16, 2018. The two leaders spoke one-on-one for two hours, with no aides or other people present except for two translators.[194]Ā There was no definite agenda, and no definite agreements were announced. After a joint press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Trump drew harsh bipartisan criticism in the United States for appearing to side with Putin’s denial of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, rather than accepting the findings of theĀ United States intelligence community.[195][196]Ā Universally condemned by Democrats, his comments were also strongly criticized by many congressional Republicans and most media commentators, even those who normally support him.[197][198]
On May 3, 2019, President Trump held an hour and a half-long phone call with President Putin from the White House. TheĀ Russian EmbassyĀ stated that the pair discussed “shared commitment to step up dialogue in various areas, including on issues of strategic stability.” Trump called the conversation “positive” and tweeted there was “Tremendous potential for a good/great relationship with Russia,” and later relayed to reporters Putin’s assurances that Russia isn’t seeking to “get involved” with the ongoingĀ 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, despite Trump’s national security advisors saying otherwise. They also discussed North Korean missile activity, with Putin briefing Trump on theĀ April 25 meetingsĀ with North Korean leaderĀ Kim Jong-un. Trump and Putin agreed on the importance ofĀ denuclearizationĀ and normalization of relations on theĀ Korean peninsula. TheĀ Mueller Report, a report on the results of a domestic U.S.Ā investigationĀ intoĀ Russian contactsĀ between President Trump’sĀ 2016 election campaign, was also discussed.[199]
During theĀ 2019 G7 summitĀ in France, President Trump unilaterally advocated forĀ Russia’s membership to G7Ā to be reinstated and said he intended to invite Vladimir Putin to theĀ 2020 G7 summit, set to be held in the U.S. Trump also shifted some blame for Russia’s 2014Ā Crimea annexationĀ to his predecessor PresidentĀ Barack Obama, saying Obama “was pure and simply outsmarted.” “It could have been stopped…but President Obama was unable to stop it, and itās too bad,” he added.[200]
President Trump and Ukrainian PresidentĀ Petro Poroshenko, June 2017
Speaking to the Yalta European Strategy conference in September 2015, Trump criticized Germany and otherĀ European countriesĀ for not doing enough to support Ukraine in itsĀ conflictĀ with Russia, saying,Ā UkrainiansĀ are “not being treated right.”[201]Ā However early in the campaign Trump opposed U.S. involvement in theĀ Ukrainian crisis, describing Crimea as “Europe’s problem;” in a rally in July 2016 he implied that such involvement could have led toĀ World War IIIĀ and criticized Germany and other European countries for not doing more to support Ukraine.[202][203]Ā Later in the campaign, however, he stated that he would considerĀ recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.[204][178]Ā In February 2017 Trump explained that Crimea was taken by Russia by force and asked whether Obama was too soft on Russia.[205]
In August 2015 Trump stated he had no opinion aboutĀ Ukrainian membership in NATO, saying that both membership and non-membership would be “great.”[201][206]
President Trump and British Prime MinisterĀ Boris Johnson, August 2019
During the campaign, Trump stated his support forĀ British voters voting to leave the European Union[207]Ā In an interview withĀ Piers MorganĀ in May 2016, Trump said that UK withdrawal would make no difference to a potential bilateral trade deal between the United Kingdom and the United States if he became president.[208]
On January 27, 2017 Trump met withĀ British Prime MinisterĀ Theresa May, the first foreign leader to visit him at the White House. In the meeting Trump reiterated his support for both countries’ involvement inĀ NATO.[33]
In March 2017 White House press secretaryĀ Sean SpicerĀ repeated a false claim fromĀ Fox NewsĀ commentatorĀ Andrew NapolitanoĀ claiming that the BritishĀ GCHQĀ hadĀ wiretappedĀ Trump Tower. This drew an angry response from the British, and eventually resulted in an apology from Spicer and the U.S. National Security AdvisorĀ H. R. McMaster.[209]
In November 2017, Trump re-tweeted three anti-Muslim videos posted by a leader of the British far-right partyĀ Britain First.[210][211]Ā Theresa May’s spokesperson condemned Trump, saying “The British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far-right, which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents ā decency, tolerance and respect. It is wrong for the President to have done this.”[210]Ā Labour leaderĀ Jeremy CorbynĀ called Trump “abhorrent, dangerous and a threat to our country”.[211]
In June 2019, President Trump made a second state visit to the UK on behalf of invitation by QueenĀ Elizabeth II.[212]
On July 7, weeks after President Trump’s second visit to the UK, leakedĀ diplomatic cablesĀ revealed candid and unflattering assessmentsĀ UK AmbassadorĀ Kim DarrochĀ made regarding Trump and his administration since 2017, including calling Trump’s presidency “diplomatically clumsy and inept” and stating that the president “radiates insecurity,” along with suggesting that unproven claims of Trump and his son-in-lawĀ Jared KushnerĀ being indebted “to shady Russian moneymen” could “not be ruled out”.[213]Ā Trump subsequently tweeted that Darroch was “not liked or well thought of within the US” and that “we will no longer deal with him” and showed dismay at Prime Minister Theresa May’s support of Darroch amidst the diplomatic row. On July 10, Darroch tendered his resignation, writing that “the current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like”. A spokesman for the prime minister said that it was an ambassador’s job to provide “an honest and unvarnished view” of the U.S. administration.[214]
During the campaign, Trump described the President of Egypt,Ā Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as a “fantastic guy,” praising his handling of various political events in Egypt, such asĀ a massive uprising in late June 2013 in EgyptĀ against former PresidentĀ Mohamed Morsi, which was followed by Morsi beingĀ removed from officeĀ by el-Sisi on July 3, 2013.[215]Ā Trump said that there was a “good feeling between [them]”.[215]Ā In April 2017, Trump welcomed el-Sisi to the White House, saying “We are very much behind President Sisi ā he has done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation” and assuring el-Sisi that “you have a great ally in the US and in me.”[216]Ā In contrast, Sisi was never invited to the White House during the Obama administration, which criticized post-Morsi authorities in Egypt, as well as Egypt’s human rights record.[216]
During the campaign Trump maintained that “Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in theĀ Middle EastĀ and on the road to nuclear weapons.”[217]Ā HeĀ opposedĀ theĀ Joint Comprehensive Plan of ActionĀ (JCPOA or “Iran nuclear deal”) that was negotiated with the United States, Iran, and five other world powers in 2015, calling it “terrible” and saying that the Obama administration negotiated the agreement “from desperation.”[218]Ā At one point he said that despite opposing the content of the deal, he would attempt to enforce it rather than abrogate it.[219]Ā However, in a speech to theĀ American Israel Public Affairs CommitteeĀ (AIPAC) in March 2016, Trump said that his “number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”[220]
After the late January missile tests by Iran, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on 25 Iranian individuals and entities on February 3, which it said were “initial steps”, with Trump’s then-National Security AdvisorĀ Michael T. FlynnĀ adding that ā³the days of turning a blind eye to Iran’s hostile and belligerent actions toward the United States and the world community are over.ā³[222][223][224]
The administration boasted that Trump personally lobbied dozens of European officials against doing business with Iran during the MayĀ 2017 Brussels summit; this likely violated the terms of the JCPOA, which expressly states that the U.S. may not pursue “any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.” The Trump administration certified in July 2017 that Iran had upheld its end of the agreement.[225]
On May 18, 2018, Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.[226]
Contradicting the administration’s previous statements, a January 2019 U.S. intelligence community assessment concluded that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.[133]
On May 20, 2019, amid a period ofĀ high tensionsĀ with Iran, Trump said: “We have no indication that anything’s happened or will happen” in Iran.[228]Ā On May 24, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared an “emergency” over Iran, allowing for the U.S. to sell around $8 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, without any congressional review, in the “national security interest of the United States”.[229]Ā On May 28, theĀ International Atomic Energy AgencyĀ certified that Iran was abiding by the main terms of the Iran nuclear deal, although questions were raised on certified that how many advanced centrifuges Iran was allowed to have, as that was only loosely defined in the deal.[230]
Trump greets Iraqi Prime MinisterĀ Haider al-Abadi, March 2017
During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly advocated that the United States should “take the oil” fromĀ IraqĀ as “spoils of war”, a decision which technically would require an invasion and occupation of the country.[231][232]Ā Trump’s statements caused criticism and controversy, as most legal experts agreed that the action would be an illegalĀ war crimeĀ under theĀ Geneva ConventionsĀ and because many believed that it would increase support forĀ Islamic fundamentalismĀ across the Middle East.[233][234]Ā Trump defended his statements by claiming that they would recoup the cost of U.S. military assistance to Iraq and prevent Iraqi oil infrastructure from falling underĀ ISILĀ control.[235]Ā Trump reiterated his support for seizing other nations’ oil after taking office as President. In January 2017, he said that the United States “should have kept the oil” after theĀ Iraq invasionĀ and “maybe we’ll have another chance”.[236]Ā AxiosĀ reported in 2018 that, as president, Trump had twice brought the issue up withĀ Iraqi Prime MinisterĀ Haider al-Abadi, causing consternation among his advisers.[237][238]Ā National Security AdviserĀ H.R. McMasterĀ is reported to have told Trump “We can’t do this and you shouldn’t talk about it. Because talking about it is just bad … It’s bad for America’s reputation, it’ll spook allies, it scares everybody,” whileĀ Secretary of DefenseĀ Jim MattisĀ publicly stated that the United States did not intend “to seize anybody’s oil.”[239]
President Trump addresses the nation after authorizing missile strikes in response to theĀ Khan Shaykhun chemical attackĀ in Syria
On 7 April 2017, Trump ordered the United States Navy toĀ launch cruise missilesĀ atĀ Shayrat Air BaseĀ in response to theĀ Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. The response had wide international support[245]Ā and was highly praised by the majority of Republicans as well as Democratic senators.[246]Ā The move drew criticism from Russia, whom the United States had warned in advance about the attack. Although Russian anti-missile defenses such asĀ S-300’sĀ failed to deter the missile attack, Russian forces suffered minimal damage, as the United States had deliberately avoided striking areas of the base used by Russia.[247]Ā Russian Prime MinisterĀ Dmitry MedvedevĀ criticized the strike as “good news for terrorists”.[248]
In response to theĀ Douma chemical attackĀ in Syria, in April 2018, Trump announcedĀ missile strikesĀ against the Assad regime targeting alleged chemical weapons compounds; the strikes were carried out along with the United Kingdom and France.[249]
Announcing troop withdrawal from Syria in December 2018, Trump stated on Twitter that defeating ISIL was “my only reason” for a military presence in Syria,[250]Ā seemingly disregarding the previous missions to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
In June 2015, when asked how he would deal with Iraq’s condemnation of strikes on their oil fields, Trump replied that Iraq is a corrupt country that is not deserving of his respect[252]Ā and that he would “bomb the hell” out ofĀ Iraqi oil fieldsĀ controlled by ISIL.[252][253]
After formally announcing his candidacy on June 16, 2015, Trump’s first interview was withĀ Bill O’ReillyĀ onĀ The O’Reilly FactorĀ the following day.[252]Ā He suggested a hands-off approach to theĀ Syrian Civil War:[252]Ā “Iran and Russia are protecting Syria and it’s sort of amazing that we’re in there fighting ISIS in Syria so we’re helping the head of SyriaĀ Bashar al-AssadĀ who is not supposed to be our friend although he looks a lot better than some of our so-called friends.”[252]Ā Instead of fighting ISIL in Syria, Trump suggested “maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS, let them fight and then you pick up the remnants.”[252]
In a Republican primary debate on November 10, 2015, Trump said he “got to knowĀ Vladimir PutinĀ very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes‘, we were stable mates, we did well that night.” Trump said he approved of theĀ Russian military intervention in Syria, stating: “If Putin wants to knock the hell out of ISIS, I’m all for it 100 percent and I can’t understand how anybody would be against that … He’s going in and we can go in and everybody should go in.”[254]Ā During his speech at theĀ Oklahoma State Fair, Trump accused his opponents of wanting to “startĀ World War IIIĀ overĀ Syria.”[255]
In the aftermath of theĀ November 2015 Paris attacksĀ committed by ISIL, Trump reiterated his position on ISIL, as he had stated the day before the attack that he would “bomb the shit out of ’em”[256]Ā and that he would “blow up the [oil] pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, and you know what, you’ll getĀ ExxonĀ to come in there in two months… and I’d take the oil.”[257]Ā Trump said that, to combat ISIL, “I would find you a proper general. I would find aĀ PattonĀ or aĀ MacArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin.”[252]Ā Trump said in an interview withĀ Anderson CooperĀ the day of the Paris attacks: “There is no Iraq. Their leaders are corrupt.”[256]Ā In the March 11, 2016 CNN Republican presidential debate, he said he would send ground troops to fight ISIL, saying: “We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS.”[258]
In a 2015 interview, Trump stated “You have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. … When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” When pressed on what “take out” meant, Trump said the U.S. should “wipe out their homes” and “where they came from.”[259]Ā Critics noted that the intentional targeting ofĀ non-combatantsĀ is a violation of theĀ Geneva ConventionsĀ and other aspects of the internationalĀ law of war.[260]Ā Jonathan Russell, head of policy for the anti-radicalization think tankĀ Quilliam, warned that Trump’s “anti-Muslim rhetoric” helps ISIL’s “narrative”, saying “Trump will contribute toĀ IslamistĀ radicalization as his comments will make Muslims feel unwelcome in America.”[261]
During his presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly criticized theĀ battle to liberate MosulĀ from ISIL control, saying that the United States is “not going to benefit” from dislodging ISIL from the Iraqi city. Trump repeatedly asserted that U.S. and Iraqi military leaders should have used “the element of surprise” to attack Mosul rather than announcing plans beforehand. He also said that U.S. military planners were “a group of losers” for not doing so.[262][263]Ā Some U.S. military officials openly rebuked Trump’s comments, saying that “it is nearly impossible to move tens of thousands of troops into position without alerting the enemy” and asserting that it was vital to warn civilians of impending military action.[262]
With the arrival of the Trump administration, a change in policy was instituted regarding the disclosure of troop levels abroad as well as the timing of any additional deployments to the Middle East, following through on his campaign promises to utilize the “element of surprise.” By April 2017, according to the LA Times,[264]Ā there had been two non-disclosed troop deployments in the month of March: a deployment of 400 U.S. Marines toĀ northern SyriaĀ and 300 U.S. Army paratroopers to the area around Mosul, Iraq. By 2 April 2017, the U.S. troop level, or “force management level” ā the number of full-time troops deployed, was around 5,200 in Iraq and 500 in Syria, with about 1,000 more troops there on a temporary basis.[264]
The Syria deployment put more conventional U.S. troops on the front that, until then, had primarily usedĀ special operationsĀ units. The 400 Marines were part of theĀ 11th MEUĀ from the Battalion Landing TeamĀ 1st Battalion, 4th Marines. They manned an artillery battery whilst additional infantrymen from the unit provided security and resupplies were handled by part of the expeditionary force’s combat logistics element.[265]
In August 2017, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISILĀ Brett H. McGurkĀ stated that the Trump administration had “dramatically accelerated” theĀ U.S.āled campaign against ISIL, citing estimates that almost one-third of the territory taken from ISIL “has been won in the last six months.” McGurk favorably cited “steps President Trump has taken, including delegating decisionāmaking authority from the White House to commanders in the field.”[266]
Some right-wing populist media figures who supported Trump during the election criticized his apparent policy reversal on the Middle East after the increased anti-ISIL commitment.[267][268][269][270]Ā Ann CoulterĀ stated that Trump “campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast” arguing that it was one of the reasons many voted for him.[267]
On December 11, 2018, anti-ISIL envoyĀ Brett McGurkĀ indicated in a press briefing that the war against ISIL in Syria was not over, stating, “It would be reckless if we were just to say, well, the physical caliphate is defeated, so we can just leave now.ā[271]Ā On December 17, 2018,Ā James Jeffrey, the United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement, stated in an address to theĀ Atlantic CouncilĀ that the United States would remain in Syria “a very long time.”[272]
On December 19, Trump, declaring “we have won against ISIS,” unilaterally announced a “total” withdrawal of the 2,000-2,500 U.S. troops in Syria. The announcement was made on Twitter and the decision was apparently made without prior consultation with Congress, military commanders and civilian advisors. Although no timetable was provided at the time, press secretaryĀ Sarah SandersĀ indicated that the withdrawal had been ordered to begin. The Pentagon and State Department tried to change Trump’s mind on the decision, with several of his congressional and political allies expressing concerns about the sudden move, specifically that it would “hand control of the region” to Russia and Iran, and “abandon” America’s Kurdish allies.[273][274]Ā Brian KilmeadeĀ of theĀ Fox & FriendsĀ news program, which Trump himself often watches, sharply criticized Trump’s decision as “totally irresponsible,” adding “nobody thinks ISIS is defeated” and that the president had “blindsided” the Pentagon and State Department.[275]
Immediately after Trump’s announcement, Defense SecretaryĀ Jim MattisĀ unsuccessfully tried persuading Trump to reconsider, then informed the president on December 20 he would resign from his post.[276]Ā Mattis asked to continue in his position through February to continue defending “the Department’s interests” at Congressional and NATO meetings while Trump selected a successor.[277]Ā Two days later, McGurk announced he was also exiting as a consequence of Trump’s decision. (McGurk had previously said he would leave in February, but as the result of the Syria withdrawal and Mattis’ departure, he moved his own departure earlier to December 31.)Ā [278]Ā In response, President Trump wrote that he did not know McGurk and questioned if McGurk was a “grandstander”.[279][280]
On December 23, Trump announced on Twitter that Deputy Secretary of DefenseĀ Patrick ShanahanĀ would become Acting Secretary of Defense effective January 1, thereby replacing Mattis two months’ earlier than Mattis’ requested resignation date.[281]Ā On 30 December SenatorĀ Lindsey Graham, a known Congressional confidant of the president that hours after the announcement of a withdrawal said it was “a stain on the honor of the United States,” said that while he agrees that it’s possible to reduce the American footprint in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, the US must keep troops in Syria to ensure ISIL can’t regroup and that he and a group of generals will urge the President to reconsider his withdrawal plans during a luncheon later that day.[282]Ā One week after his announcement, Trump asserted he would not approve any extension of the American deployment in Syria.[283]Ā On January 6, 2019, national security advisorĀ John BoltonĀ added conditions to the pullout, announcing America would remain in Syria until ISIL is eradicated and until Turkey guarantees it would not strike America’s Kurdish allies.[284]
On 22 February 2019, the administration stated that instead of the initially announced “total” pullout, 400 residual U.S. troops would remain in Syria indefinitely post-withdrawal to serve as aĀ contingencyĀ force. About 200 of those would be a part of a larger multinational “observer force”.[285]Ā These several hundred troops may be in various parts of the country.[286]Ā Press secretaryĀ Sarah SandersĀ initially characterized the troops as “peacekeepers“, although a senior administration official later disputed that label as the term technically implied restrictedĀ rules of engagement. The shift from a total to a partial withdrawal came afterĀ Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffĀ Joseph DunfordĀ strongly vouched for it as French and British allies declined to remain in Syria unless America did. After the announcement,Ā The New York TimesĀ quoted officials as describing a “surreal atmosphere” at the Pentagon among military leaders overseeing Syrian policy.[287]Ā A bipartisan group of members of Congress wrote Trump a letter on 22 February endorsing a “small American stabilizing force” in Syria. Trump responded by writing directly on the letter, “I agree 100%. ALL is being done.”[286]
On February 28, while speaking to troops atĀ Joint Base Elmendorf-RichardsonĀ inĀ AlaskaĀ during a refueling stop fromĀ Hanoi, Trump asserted that the Islamic State had lost “100 percent” of its territory that it once controlled in Syria. The assertion was technically erroneous as theĀ Syrian Democratic Forces‘sĀ final battleĀ against ISIL was still ongoing, and the terror group still held virtual territory in theĀ Syrian Desert. Trump had been eager to announce ISIL’s defeat since late 2018 due to the SDF’sĀ multi-year campaign, which deprived the jihadists of swathes of territory, culminating into a final assault, akin toĀ Tora BoraĀ in 2001.[288]Ā ISIL continued to hold the town ofĀ Al-Baghuz Fawqani, where, on 4 March, the U.S.-backed battle there resulted in the surrender of 500 people, including some ISIL fighters.[289]
On March 22, 2019, in response to developments in theĀ Battle of Baghuz Fawqani, where ISIL had put up stubborn resistance to U.S.-backed forces there, Trump showed reporters two maps comparing the extents of the Islamic State’s occupation of Syria and Iraq, stating āHereās ISIS on Election Day. Hereās ISIS right now.” The “election day” map was actually from 2014, when the occupation was at its peak, and just as the U.S.-led coalition had begun pushing back against ISIL.[290]Ā The battle concluded on March 23, the next day, with the U.S.-backed SDF militia’s victory over ISIL. Trump administration officials and allies cautiously hailed the territorial collapse of the extremist group in Syria while stressing the need to keep a presence in Syria to keep up pressure and to stop a territorial resurgence of the terror group that retained global reach and offshoots in various countries.[291]
Trump and President of the Palestinian AuthorityĀ Mahmoud Abbas, May 3, 2017
During the campaign
Trump has been critical of the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel, stating that “Israel has been totally mistreated.”[292]
Early in the campaign Trump said that an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord would depend very much upon Israel, saying “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal ā whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”[293]Ā He also said that as a condition of peace, theĀ Palestinian National AuthorityĀ must recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and “stop the terror, stop the attacks, stop the teaching of hatred.”[294]Ā At one point during the campaign, Trump said that he would not take sides in any Israeli-Palestinian agreement in order to be a neutral negotiator in the peace talks, but he also added that he was “totally pro-Israel.”[295]
During the campaign he broke with long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy that Israel should stop building additionalĀ Israeli settlementsĀ in theĀ West BankĀ as a precursor to negotiations with the Palestinians, saying that the Israelis “have to keep going” and “I don’t think there should be a pause.”[296]
Candidate Trump promisedĀ AIPACĀ that as president he would veto anyĀ United Nations-imposed Israel-Palestine peace agreement.[300]Ā He added that “The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.”[300]
The Trump administration
This section needs to beĀ updated.Ā Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.Ā (August 2019)
President Trump, joined by Benjamin Netanyahu behind, signs the proclamationĀ recognizingĀ Israel’s 1981Ā annexationĀ of theĀ Golan Heights, March 25, 2019
In February 2017, President Trump said that he could live with either a two-state solution or a one-state solution to theĀ IsraeliāPalestinian conflict.[301]Ā This represented a break with the previous bipartisan foreign policy consensus of support for the two-state solution.[301]Ā On May 22, 2017, Trump was the first U.S. president to visit theĀ Western WallĀ in Jerusalem, during his first foreign trip, visitingĀ Saudi Arabia, Israel, Italy, theĀ Vatican, andĀ Belgium.[302]Ā On December 6, 2017, Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, despite objections from Palestinian leaders. Trump added that he would initiate the process of establishing a new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.[303]
Trump has previously said that he would not take sides in any Israeli-Palestinian agreement in order to be a neutral negotiator in the peace talks, although he also added that he was “totally pro-Israel.”[295]Ā In December 2015, Trump told theĀ Associated PressĀ that an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord would depend very much upon Israel, remarking: “I have a real question as to whether or not both sides want to” come to a peace accord. “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal ā whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.”[293]
Trump has vowed that as president he will veto aĀ United Nations-imposed Israel-Palestine peace agreement, stating: “When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the U.N. to impose its will on the Jewish state. It will be vetoed 100 percent.”[300]Ā He added that “The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.”[300]
Trump has criticized theĀ Palestinian National AuthorityĀ for the absence of peace, saying: “the Palestinian Authority has to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. ā¦[and they] have to stop the terror, stop the attacks, stop the teaching of hatred… They have to stop the teaching of children to aspire to grow up as terrorists, which is a real problem. Of course, the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is also a major sticking point, with the current Palestinian leadership repeatedly refusing to meet that basic condition.”[294]
During the campaign, Trump called for Saudi Arabia to pay for the costs of American troops stationed there.[305]Ā He has argued that regional allies of the United States, such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight against theĀ Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantĀ (ISIL). Trump said he would haltĀ oil imports from Saudi ArabiaĀ unless the Saudi government provide ground troops to defeat ISIL.[306]
In March 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson approved the resumption on the sale of guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, a move that had been halted late in the Obama administration because of criticisms of the Saudi government’s approach to civilian casualties in theĀ Yemeni Civil War.[307]
During the campaign, Trump praised Turkish PresidentĀ Recep Tayyip ErdoÄanĀ for his handling of theĀ 2016 coup attempt in Turkey[4]Ā When asked if ErdoÄan was exploiting the coup attempt toĀ purge his political enemies, Trump did not call for the Turkish leader to observe the rule of law, or offer other cautions for restraint. He said that the United States had to “fix our own mess” before trying to change the behavior of other countries.[4]
Trump also stated during the campaign that he believed he could persuade ErdoÄan to step up efforts against ISIL.[4]Ā When asked how he would solve the problem ofĀ Turkish attacks on KurdsĀ who are fighting ISIL, Trump said “Meetings.”[4]
Trump has threatened Turkey with economic sanctions over its detention of the evangelical Christian pastorĀ Andrew Brunson. On August 1, 2018, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Turkey’s justice and interior ministers.[308]
This section is empty.Ā You can help byĀ adding to it.Ā (July 2019)
Sub-Saharan Africa
Trump welcomingĀ Kenyaās PresidentĀ Uhuru KenyattaĀ and his wife on August 27, 2018
The Trump administration has been accused of generally ignoring Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa. By October 2017, senior diplomatic positions relating to the continent were still vacant, includingĀ Assistant Secretary of State for African AffairsĀ and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Africa. U.S. military operations in the region continued, but there were no clear statement of objectives or guidance for the Africa Command at the time, headed by GeneralĀ Thomas Waldhauser.[309]Ā Alan Patterson would later serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Africa from December 2017 to October 2018 andĀ Tibor P. NagyĀ would becomeĀ Assistant Secretary of State for African AffairsĀ on July 23, 2018.[310][311]
During a summer 2017 meeting about immigration, Trump reportedly said that Nigerians, once they came to the United States, would never “go back to their huts”. The White House strongly denied the claim.[39]Ā In a meeting with congressional leaders on January 11, 2018, Trump asked during a discussion of immigration from Africa why America would want people from “all these shithole countries”, suggesting that it would be better to receive immigrants from countries like Norway. The comment was condemned as racist by many foreign leaders and a UN spokesman. The African Union said it was “alarmed” by the comment, which “flies in the face of all accepted behavior and practice.”[40]Ā African ambassadors in Washington planned to meet the following week to discuss a response. They expressed dismay that it took something like this to bring attention to Africa when the continent has so many other issues, such as famine and civil war, that Washington ignores.[312]
South Africa
On August 23, 2018, Trump publicly instructed Secretary of StateĀ Mike PompeoĀ to investigateĀ South African farm attacks,[313]Ā an instruction which was widely described in mainstream media as the administration advocating for an unfoundedĀ white genocide conspiracy theory.[314][315][316][317]Ā Trump had apparently gotten his information from aĀ Tucker CarlsonĀ segment onĀ Fox News.[318]Ā The media roundly berated the move, withĀ New YorkĀ magazine claiming Trump was attempting to “change the conversation ā to one about āwhite genocideā in South Africa”,[319]Ā EsquireĀ reported that the “President of the United States is now openly promoting an international racist conspiracy theory as the officialĀ foreign policy of the United States“.[320]Ā According to theĀ SPLC, Trump had “tweeted out his intention to put the full force of theĀ U.S. State DepartmentĀ behind a white nationalist conspiracy theory”.[321]
Causing “angry reaction in South Africa”, many politicians responded critically including formerĀ US AmbassadorĀ to South AfricaĀ Patrick Gaspard, RSAĀ Deputy PresidentĀ David MabuzaĀ andĀ Julius MalemaĀ MP, who responded to Trump, declaring “there is no white genocide in South Africa”,[322]Ā and that the US President’s intervention into their ongoingĀ land reform issuesĀ “only made them more determined… to expropriate our land without compensation”.[323][324]Ā Trump had previously caused controversy around the topic as a presidential candidate in 2016, when he republished content from a social media account named “WhiteGenocideTM”.[325][326]
President Trump and Australian Prime MinisterĀ Malcolm TurnbullĀ in New York City, May 2017
A report in the Washington Post on February 2, 2017 claimed that Trump berated Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and hung up 35 minutes earlier than planned over a refugee resettlement deal that President Obama had made with Australia where the United States agreed to take 1,250 refugees from camps in Nauru and Manus Island.[327]Ā It was also claimed that Trump suggested Turnbull was attempting to export the next Boston bombers to the United States.[328]Ā Later that same day, Trump explained that although he respected Australia, they were “terribly taking advantage” of the United States.[329]Ā Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey met with Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon the next day and Sean Spicer described the call as “cordial”. Reuters described the call as “acrimonious” and the Washington Post said that it was Trump’s “worst call by far” with a foreign leader.[330][331]Ā Notwithstanding the disagreement regarding the resettlement of the refugees Vice President Mike Pence, while on a visit to Australia in April 2017, stated the United States will abide by the deal. The decision was seen as a positive sign of commitment by the Australian Prime Minister.[332]
During the campaign, Trump said of theĀ European Union, “the reason that it got together was like aĀ consortiumĀ so that it could compete with the United States.”[333]Ā U.S. foreign-policy experts such asĀ Strobe TalbottĀ and Amie Kreppel noted that this was incorrect, pointing out that while the EU was established in part to rebuild the European economies afterĀ World War II, it was not created specifically to compete with the United States. In fact the United States sanctioned the EU’s creation to foster peace, prevent another catastrophic war, and create a “strong European market to consume American-made goods to help fuel American economic growth.”[334]
President Trump and NATO Secretary GeneralĀ Jens Stoltenberg, April 2017
During the campaign, Trump called for a “rethink” of American involvement in NATO, stating that the United States pays too much to ensure the security of allies, stating that “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money”.[335]Ā Later in the same interview, he stated that the U.S. should not “decrease its role” in NATO but rather should decrease U.S. spending in regards to the organization.[336]
In a July 2016 interview, Trump “explicitly raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies,” questioning whether he, as president, would automatically extendĀ security guarantees to NATO members.[4]Ā Asked about a prospective Russia attack on NATO’sĀ Baltic members, Trump stated that he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”[4]Ā This would represent a sharp break with U.S. foreign traditions.[4][337]
As president, Trump said in a February 2017 speech that the United States strongly supports NATO, but continued to insist that NATO members aren’t paying their fair share as part of the alliance.[338]Ā In May 2017 he visited the new NATO headquarters in Brussels to help dedicate a memorial there for theĀ September 11, 2001 attacks. In his prepared remarks he prompted NATO to do more to fight terrorism and to add limiting immigration to its tasks. In the speech he did not explicitly reaffirm US commitment toĀ Article V, which obligates all NATO members to respond to an attack against any one member. White House spokesperson Sean Spicer later reaffirmed America’s commitment to joint defense.[339]Ā With regard to the alliance’s enacted guideline that members should spend a minimum of 2 percent of their national GDP for defense by 2024, Trump said that “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying for their defense”. He also claimed that “many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years.”[339][340]Ā Media fact-checkers observed that, while most members of the alliance indeed had yet to reach the 2 percent target for their national defense spending in 2017, technically they are not in arrears and they “do not owe anything” to the United States or to NATO.[340][341]
In early April 2019, during a trip to the U.S. to hail NATO’s 70th anniversary, Secretary-GeneralĀ Jens StoltenbergĀ affirmed that the NATO alliance remained “strong” and downplayed the severity of the disputes and uncertainties that emerged during the Trump administration. On April 2, Stoltenberg and Trump had a positive meeting at the White House, where Trump praised NATO for increased defense spending. Trump said he and Stoltenberg are “both committed to ensuring that NATO can address the full range of threats facing the alliance today.” During a speech to Congress on April 3, Stoltenberg acknowledged that “there are differences,” noting disputes over trade, energy, climate change policy, the Iran nuclear agreement and burden sharing among NATO allies ā all issues raised by Trump. Noting that NATO members are on track to increase defense spending by up to $100 billion, Stoltenberg said that “this has been the clear message from President Trump and this message is having a real impact.”[342]
During the campaign, Trump criticized the United Nations, saying that it was weak, incompetent, and “not a friend of democracy… freedom… the United States… Israel”.[343]Ā Upon taking office, Trump appointedĀ Nikki HaleyĀ as theĀ United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
When announcing his candidacy in June 2015, Trump said that his experience as a negotiator in private business would enhance his ability to negotiate better international trade deals as President.[51][344]Ā Trump identifies himself as a “free trader,”[88]Ā but has been widely described as aĀ “protectionist“.[345][346][347][348][349]Ā Trump has described supporters of international trade as “blood suckers.”[350]
Trump’s views on trade have upended the traditional Republican policies favoring free trade.[345][87]Ā Binyamin Appelbaum, reporting for theĀ New York Times, has summarized Trump’s proposals as breaking with 200 years ofĀ economicsĀ orthodoxy.[89][351]Ā American economic writerĀ Bruce BartlettĀ argued that Trump’sĀ protectionistĀ views have roots in the Whig Party program of the 1830s. He noted that many Americans were sympathetic to these views, while saying this was nonetheless not a good justification to adopt them.[352]Ā Canadian writerĀ Lawrence SolomonĀ describes Trump’s position on trade as similar to that as of pre-ReaganĀ Republican presidents, such asĀ Herbert HooverĀ (who signed theĀ Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) andĀ Richard NixonĀ (who ran on a protectionist platform).[353]
A January 2019Ā intelligence communityĀ assessment concluded that Trump’s trade policies and unilateralism had “damaged” traditional alliances and induced foreign partners to seek new relationships.[133]
NAFTA and USMCA
During the campaign, Trump condemned theĀ North American Free Trade AgreementĀ (NAFTA), saying that if elected president, “We will either renegotiate it, or we will break it.”[60][61]
During his meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after becoming President, Trump stated that he viewed the Canadian situation different than Mexico, and only envisioned minor changes for Canada, with much larger ones for Mexico.[34]
In September 2018, the United States, Mexico, and Canada reached an agreement to replace NAFTA with theĀ United StatesāMexicoāCanada AgreementĀ (USMCA). NAFTA will remain in force, pending the ratification of the USMCA.[354]
During the campaign, Trump proposed a 45 percentĀ tariffĀ onĀ Chinese exports to the United StatesĀ to give “American workers a level playing field.”[88][89]Ā According to an analysis byĀ Capital Economics, Trump’s proposed tariff may hurt U.S. consumers by driving U.S. retail price of Chinese made goods up 10 percent, because of few alternative suppliers in key product classes that China sells to the U.S.[355]Ā The goods trade deficit with China in 2015 was $367.2 billion.[356]Ā TheĀ Economic Policy InstituteĀ (EPI) reported in December 2014 that “Growth in the U.S. goods trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2013 eliminated or displaced 3.2 million U.S. jobs, 2.4 million (three-fourths) of which were in manufacturing.” EPI reported these losses were distributed across all 50 states.[357]
Trump has pledged “swift, robust and unequivocal” action against Chinese piracy,Ā counterfeitĀ American goods, and theft of U.S.Ā trade secretsĀ andĀ intellectual property; and has condemned China’s “illegalĀ export subsidiesĀ and lax labor and environmental standards.”[87]Ā In a May 2016 campaign speech, Trump responded to concerns regarding a potential trade war with “We’re losing $500 billion in trade with China. Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?”[91]
After taking office, White House press secretary Sean Spicer noted that Trump was considering imposing a 20% tariff on Mexican imports to the United States as one of several options that would pay for his proposed border wall.[358]Ā The Mexican government has stated that if unilateral tariffs were imposed on Mexico, it would consider retaliating by imposing tariffs on goods Mexico imports from the United States.[359]
Trans-Pacific Partnership
During the campaign, Trump opposed theĀ Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying “The deal is insanity. That deal should not be supported and it should not be allowed to happen … We are giving away what ultimately is going to be a back door for China.”[360]Ā On January 23, 2017 Trump withdrew from the trade deal citing the need to protect American workers from competition by workers in low-wage countries.[361]
World Trade Organization
Trump has called theĀ World Trade OrganizationĀ (WTO) a “disaster”.[362]Ā When informed that tariffs in the range of 15 to 35 percent would be contrary to the rules of the WTO, he answered “even better. Then we’re going to renegotiate or we’re going to pull out.”[57]
Nuclear policy
This section needs to beĀ updated.Ā Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.Ā (August 2019)
During the campaign, Trump said that the U.S.’s control is getting weaker and that its nuclear arsenal is old and does not work.[363]
When asked at March 2016 campaign town hall with MSNBC’sĀ Chris MatthewsĀ whether he would rule out the use of nuclear weapons, Trump answered that the option of using nuclear weapons should never be taken off the table.[364][365][366]
Nuclear proliferation
During the campaign, Trump expressed support for South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia having nuclear weapons if they would be unwilling to pay the United States for security.[367][368][369][370]Ā He also deemed it inevitable, “It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time. They’re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely.”[367]Ā Trump’s tentative support for nuclear proliferation was in contradiction to decades of bipartisan U.S. consensus on the issue.[371]
Pakistani nuclear arsenal
During the campaign, Trump was critical ofĀ Pakistan, comparing it to North Korea, calling it “probably the most dangerous country” in the world, and claiming thatĀ Pakistan’s nuclear weaponsĀ posed a “serious problem.” He has advocated improvingĀ relations with IndiaĀ as a supposed “check” to Pakistan. He has said that his government will fully cooperate with India in doing so.[372]
Story 2: United States Fiscal Year 2019 Budgetary Deficit Exceeds $1,000,000,000,000,000 — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) Burdening Future Generation of American Citizens — Tax, Spend, Borrow — Videos
Government watchdog says federal budget deficit will top $1 trillion next year
What Does a $1 Trillion Budget Deficit Mean for U.S. Economy, Markets?
The federal deficit surpassed $1 trillion in the first 11 months ofĀ fiscal 2019, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday.
The deficit presently stands at $1.068 trillion, though it is likely to be reduced in September as quarterly tax payments are paid.
“In its most recent baseline projections, CBO estimated that the 2019 budget deficit would be $960 billion,” the CBO noted. That amount would be $181 billion higher than last year’s deficit.
The deficit as of Monday was runningĀ $168 billion ahead of the deficit in the last fiscal year at this time.
While mandatory spending such as Social Security and Medicare drive the deficit, it has shot up underĀ President Trump‘s watch following the GOP tax cut bill and a series of bipartisan agreements to raise spending on both defense and domestic priorities.
The CBO has called the nation’s fiscal path “unsustainable,” noting that payments on interest alone were on track to overtake both defense and domestic spending by 2046.
Recent concerns over a possible economic downturn or recession have further exacerbated concernsĀ about the nation’s fiscal situation, which tends to worsen when the economy slides.
Story 3: United States F-15s and F-35s Bombs ISIS Infested Island in Iraq — Videos
U.S. AIR FORCE USES F-15S AND F-35S TO BOMB ISIS ISLAND
US bombs ISIS-‘infested island’ in Iraq, new video shows
US drops 40 tons of bombs on IS-‘infested’ island in Iraq
UpdatedĀ
The U.S.-led coalition says American warplanes have dropped 36,000 kilograms (40 tons) of bombs on an Island in the Tigris River “infested” with members of the Islamic State group.
The coalition said F15 and F35 warplanes took part in the bombing on Qanus Island in the central province of Salaheddine, north of the capital Baghdad.
Tuesday’s attack is part of operations carried out by Iraqi forces and the U.S.-led coalition against IS, which was defeated in Iraq in 2017.
Story 3: Israeli Air Force Bombs Pro-Iranian ShiiteĀ Hezbollah Militia Base in Syria — Videos
Syrian official blames Israel, US for strike on base near Iraq border
Official quoted by state TV and Hezbollah claims base was under construction and deserted, but activists say at least 18 people killed, including Iranian and Iran-backed fighters
Iraqi Shiite fighters of the Popular Mobilization Forces secure the border area with Syria in al-Qaim in Iraq’s Anbar province, opposite Al-Bukamal in Syria’s Deir Ezzor region, on November 12, 2018. (Photo by AHMAD AL-RUBAYE / AFP)
A Syrian security official blamed Israel and the US for an attack on a base belonging to a pro-Iranian Shiite militia in Syria near the border with Iraq on Monday.
The pre-dawn attack targeted a base known as the Imam Ali compound in the al-Bukamal region of eastern Syria, near the border with Iraq. A London-based observer said at least 18 people were killed, including Iranian and pro-Iranian fighters.
Israel reportedly believes the base was a key element in Tehranās effort to develop a so-called āland bridgeā that would allow the Islamic Republic to easily move weapons, fighters, and war materiel from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The base belonged to the Popular Mobilization Force, an umbrella group of Iraqi Shiite militias, which are funded in large part by Iran.
A Syria-based official for the Iraqi militia claimed that Israel was behind the attack, adding that four missiles fired by warplanes hit a post manned by Iranian gunmen and members of Lebanonās Hezbollah group.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said there were no Iraqi casualties in the strike, which he said hit about 3 kilometers (2 miles) from the Iraqi border.
A Syrian security official cited by the government-controlled Syrian Central Military Media said the Israeli planes targeted a military camp that was being set up by the Syrian army and its allies. It said the structure was deserted at the time and the strike did not cause any casualties, contrary to other reports.
The official claimed the planes used Jordanian airspace and were āaidedā by American forces stationed at the Tanf garrison, near Syriaās eastern border with Jordan.
Members of the Maghawir al-Thawra Syrian opposition group receive firearms training from US Army Special Forces soldiers at the al-Tanf military outpost in southern Syria on October 22, 2018. (AP/Lolita Baldor)
āWe hold the Americans and Israelis responsible for these acts of aggression which cross the red lines,ā said the official, who was not named.
Hezbollah military media also quoted the security source in Syria accusing Israel of launching the attack, although there was no official statement from Damascus.
Pro-Iranian news outlets also attributed the bombardment to the Israel Defense Forces.
Neither Israel nor the US-led coalition, which carries out air strikes in the area against jihadist sleeper cells, commented on the incident.
Israel, which has vowed to keep weakening Iran so long as it continues to develop weapons that threaten the Jewish state, has launched attacks against a variety of targets, and has reportedly stepped up its campaign against Iran-backed forces in Iraq in recent months.
Early Tuesday, fresh blasts were reported at storehouses used by the PMF near the Iraq city of Hit in Anbar Province, some 200 kilometers from Al-Bukamal.
The al-Bukamal compound was first publicly identified as an Iranian-controlled baseĀ earlier this month by Fox News, citing unnamed Western intelligence sources.
According to satellite images released by a private Israeli intelligence firm, at least eight storehouses in the compound were destroyed.
āIf indeed it is an Iranian base, it is probable that the strike is part of the struggle with Tehran to prevent its effort of establishing the land corridor to its allies in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon,ā the Israeli satellite imagery analysis company ImageSat International wrote.
Satellite image showing the aftermath of an overnight airstrike on an alleged Iranian military base in Syriaās Albu Kamal region, near the Iraqi border, on September 9, 2019. (ImageSat International)
Shortly after the strike, members of a Shiite militia in Syria fired a number of rockets toward Mount Hermon on the Israeli Golan Heights from the outskirts of Damascus, according to the Israeli military.
The projectiles fell short of the border and landed inside Syrian territory.
The highly irregular reprisal attack by a pro-Iranian militia appeared to indicate that Tehran saw the strike as a serious blow to its efforts in the region.
According to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the airstrikes began late Sunday and continued after midnight, killing 18 Iranian and pro-Iranian fighters and also causing extensive damage.
The Sound and Pictures, a local activist collective in eastern Syria, gave a higher death toll, saying 21 fighters were killed and 36 wounded. The collective said the strikes targeted positions belonging to Iranian militias and those of the PMF.
Satellite image showing the construction of a new Iranian military base in Iraqās Albukamal Al-Qaim region, near the Syrian border (ImageSat International via Fox News)
According to ImageSat, the eight storehouses that were destroyed in the strike appeared to be either newly built or still in the process of being built. Several other structures remained intact following the strike.
The Israeli intelligence firm said that the storehouses appeared to have been holding ammunition and weaponry when they were attacked.
Since mid-July, at least five arms depots and training camps in Iraq belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces have been targeted in apparent attacks.
The PMF has blamed both Israel and the US for the recent string of blasts and drone sightings at its bases.
The Pentagon, which is mindful of not alienating Iraqās leadership and jeopardizing its military presence in the country, has pointedly distanced itself from the mysterious explosions.
Plumes of smoke rise after an explosion at a military base southwest of Baghdad, Iraq, on August 12, 2019. (AP Photo/Loay Hameed)
Anonymous US officialsĀ recentlyĀ said the IDF was behind at least some strikes on Iran-linked sites outside of Baghdad.
According to the Fox News report, once completed, the al-Bukamal base could house thousands of soldiers and storage facilities for advanced weapons. The US cable network said the baseās construction is being overseen by Iranās powerful Quds Force and its commander Qassem Soleimani.
Satellite photos of the base, released by ImageSat International last week, showed what appeared to be five recently constructed buildings that can store precision-guided missiles.
Satellite image showing the construction of a new Iranian military base in Iraqās Albukamal Al-Qaim region, near the Syrian border (ImageSat International via Fox News)
Israel views Iran as its greatest threat, and has acknowledged carrying out scores of airstrikes in Syria in recent years aimed primarily at preventing the transfers of sophisticated weapons, including guided missiles, to the Iran-backed Hezbollah.
The PMF was established in 2014 from mostly Shiite paramilitary groups and volunteers to fight the Islamic State jihadist organization and is now formally part of Iraqās armed forces.
But the US and Israel fear some units are an extension of Iran and have been equipped with precision-guided missiles that could reach Israel.
Unclaimed airstrikes in easternĀ SyriaĀ have killed 18 Iranian and pro-Iran fighters, according to a war monitoring group, as tensions around Tehranās military presence in the region intensify.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strikes in and around the town of Abu Kamal began late on Sunday and continued after midnight, targeting bases, arms depots and vehicles.
Suspicion is likely to fall on Israel, which has conducted hundreds of bombing raids in the country, often against Iranian military assets and personnel. It accuses Tehran of using Syria, which neighboursĀ Israel, as a base to attack it.
The Israel Defence Forces did not comment on whether it was behind the attack. Later on Monday the Israeli military said an Iranian-backed Shia militia on the outskirts of the Syrian capital, Damascus, had fired āa number of rocketsā towards Israel. All failed to hit Israeli territory, it said. It was not clear if the attempted rocket attacks against Israel were a response to the bombing raid.
Separately, Iranās main proxy force in Lebanon, Hezbollah, claimed it had shot down an Israeli drone that crossed the border, a week after the bitter enemiesĀ traded fireĀ for the first time in years.
The unmanned aircraft was flying near the southern Lebanese town of Ramyah, the Iranian-backed group said, adding that it fighters had removed the wreckage.
Asked about the downed drone in Lebanon, Israelās military confirmed it had lost a drone but said it āfell insideĀ LebanonĀ territory during a routine missionā. An army spokesperson did not say what had caused the crash, adding that the drone was āstandard size, nothing too big ā¦ There is no concern information could be taken from it.ā
Hezbollah and the Israeli armyĀ exchanged brief but intenseĀ fire on 1 September, the fiercest bout since the 2006 war. It began when a Hezbollah squad fired anti-tank missiles at an Israeli military vehicle at the frontier, to which Israel immediately responded with heavy shelling and helicopter strikes on the area.
That flare-up was also sparked by claims of Israeli drone use in Lebanon. Days earlier, Hezbollah had accused Israel ofĀ attempting to attack itĀ with two drones in its stronghold of southern Beirut. Those drones, about which Israel would not comment, were suspected of targeting equipment for making precision guidance missiles.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollahās leader, blamed Israel for the alleged drone attack and promised to retaliate. He also vowed his fighters would target Israeli drones that entered Lebanonās airspace in the future.
The two adversaries fought a deadly month-long conflict in 2006 that killed about 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and roughly 160 in Israel. Since then incidents of hostile action have been rare but the renewed violence has raised fears of the potential for another conflict.
Israel says it has intelligence that Iran has been helping HezbollahĀ build guided missiles in Lebanon, which it said it would not tolerate.
It has targeted Hezbollah in Syria, whose forces entered the civil war in support of President Bashar al-Assad, but has largely refrained from attacks on Lebanese soil, fearing it may lead to reprisal strikes.
Israelās prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said last month thatĀ IranĀ had āno immunity, anywhereā. He added: āWe will act, and currently are acting, against them, wherever it is necessary.ā
A crisis between Iran and the US over a collapsing nuclear deal, hefty sanctions imposed by Washington, and Iranās support for Shia militia in Iraq have raised fears of an escalating conflict in the Middle East.
Story 5: Remembering The Prescient and Wisdom of Ron Paul on Limited Government and the Neoconservatives — Videos
NeoconservatismĀ (commonly shortened toĀ neoconĀ when labelling its adherents) is aĀ political movementĀ born in theĀ United StatesĀ during the 1960s amongĀ liberal hawksĀ who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of theĀ Democratic Party, and the growingĀ New LeftĀ andĀ counterculture, in particular theĀ Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as theĀ Great Society.
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration ofĀ George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning theĀ 2003 invasion of Iraq.[3]Ā Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration includedĀ Paul Wolfowitz,Ā Elliott Abrams,Ā Richard Perle, andĀ Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice PresidentĀ Dick CheneyĀ and Secretary of DefenseĀ Donald RumsfeldĀ listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
Historically speaking, the term “neoconservative” refers to those who made the ideological journey from theĀ anti-Stalinist leftĀ to the camp ofĀ American conservatismĀ during the 1960s and 1970s.[4]Ā The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazineĀ Commentary, edited byĀ Norman PodhoretzĀ and published by theĀ American Jewish Committee.[5][6]Ā They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8]
The “neoconservative” label was used byĀ Irving KristolĀ in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative'”.[10]Ā His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited the magazineĀ Encounter.[11]
Another source wasĀ Norman Podhoretz, editor of the magazineĀ CommentaryĀ from 1960 to 1995. By 1982, Podhoretz was terming himself a neoconservative inĀ The New York Times MagazineĀ article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[12][13]
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives considered thatĀ liberalismĀ had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about”, according toĀ E. J. Dionne.[14]
Seymour LipsetĀ asserts that the term “neoconservative” was used originally byĀ socialistsĀ to criticize the politics ofĀ Social Democrats, USAĀ (SDUSA).[15]Ā Jonah GoldbergĀ argues that the term is ideological criticism against proponents ofĀ modern American liberalismĀ who had become slightly more conservative[10][16]Ā (both Lipset and Goldberg are frequently described as neoconservatives). In a book-length study for Harvard University Press, historianĀ Justin VaisseĀ writes that Lipset and Goldberg are in error, as “neoconservative” was used by socialist Michael Harrington to describe three men ā noted above ā who were not in SDUSA, and neoconservatism is a definable political movement.[17]
The term “neoconservative” was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency ofĀ George W. Bush,[18][19]Ā with particular emphasis on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of theĀ Bush Doctrine.[20]
History
SenatorĀ Henry M. Jackson, inspiration for neoconservative foreign policy during the 1970s
Through the 1950s and early 1960s, the future neoconservatives had endorsed theĀ civil rights movement,Ā racial integrationĀ andĀ Martin Luther King Jr.[21]Ā From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was general endorsement among liberals for military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[22]
A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists associated with the right-wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP) and its successor,Ā Social Democrats, USAĀ (SDUSA).Ā Max Shachtman, a former Trotskyist theorist who developed a strong antipathy towards the New Left, had numerous devotees among SDUSA with strong links toĀ George Meany‘s AFL-CIO. Following Shachtman and Meany, this faction led the SP to oppose immediate withdrawal from the Vietnam War, and oppose George McGovern in the Democratic primary race and, to some extent, the general election. They also chose to cease their own party-building and concentrated on working within the Democratic Party, eventually influencing it through theĀ Democratic Leadership Council.[25]Ā Thus the Socialist Party dissolved in 1972, and SDUSA emerged that year. (Most of the left-wing of the party, led by Michael Harrington, immediately abandoned SDUSA.)[26][27]Ā SDUSA leaders associated with neoconservatism includeĀ Carl Gershman,Ā Penn Kemble,Ā Joshua MuravchikĀ andĀ Bayard Rustin.[28][29][30][31]
Norman Podhoretz’s magazineĀ CommentaryĀ of theĀ American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s.Ā CommentaryĀ published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.
New York Intellectuals
Many neoconservatives had beenĀ Jewish intellectuals in New York CityĀ during the 1930s. They were on the political left, but strongly opposed Stalinism and some were Trotskyists. During theĀ Cold WarĀ they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy. The great majority became liberal Democrats.[32][33]
Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern’s New Politics
Neoconservatism … originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War] … many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center … Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
Leo Strauss and his students
C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy ofĀ Leo StraussĀ (1899ā1973),[38]Ā although there are several writers who claim that in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himselfĀ did not endorse. Eugene Sheppard notes: “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism”.[39]Ā Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at theĀ New School for Social ResearchĀ in New York (1939ā1949) and theĀ University of ChicagoĀ (1949ā1958).[40]
Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose”. His solution was a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. TheĀ Greek classicsĀ (classical republicanĀ andĀ modern republican),Ā political philosophyĀ and theĀ Judeo-Christian heritageĀ are the essentials of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work.[41][42]Ā Strauss emphasized the spirit of the Greek classics and Thomas G. West (1991) argues that for Strauss theĀ American Founding FathersĀ were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice.
For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. A classical liberal, he repudiated the philosophy ofĀ John LockeĀ as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism and instead defendedĀ liberal democracyĀ as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes.[43]Ā For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the pre-modern Western tradition.[44]Ā O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics, but his students wrote a great deal and that Strauss’s influence caused his students to rejectĀ historicismĀ andĀ positivismĀ asĀ morally relativistĀ positions.[45]Ā They instead promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[46]Ā Strauss’s emphasis onĀ moral clarityĀ led the Straussians to develop an approach toĀ international relationsĀ that Catherine and Michael Zuckert (2008) callĀ StraussianĀ WilsonianismĀ (orĀ StraussianĀ idealism), the defense of liberal democracy in the face of its vulnerability.[45][47]
A theory of neoconservative foreign policy during the final years of the Cold War was articulated byĀ Jeane KirkpatrickĀ in “Dictatorships and Double Standards“,[50]Ā published inĀ Commentary MagazineĀ during November 1979. Kirkpatrick criticized the foreign policy ofĀ Jimmy Carter, which endorsedĀ detenteĀ with the Soviet Union. She later served the Reagan Administration as Ambassador to the United Nations.[51]
Skepticism towards democracy promotion
In “Dictatorships and Double Standards”, Kirkpatrick distinguished betweenĀ authoritarianĀ regimes and theĀ totalitarianĀ regimes such as the Soviet Union. She suggested that in some countries democracy was not tenable and the United States had a choice between endorsing authoritarian governments, which might evolve into democracies, orĀ MarxistāLeninistĀ regimes, which she argued had never been ended once they achieved totalitarian control. In such tragic circumstances, she argued that allying with authoritarian governments might be prudent. Kirkpatrick argued that by demanding rapidĀ liberalizationĀ in traditionallyĀ autocraticĀ countries, the Carter administration had delivered those countries to MarxistāLeninists that were even more repressive. She further accused the Carter administration of a “double standard” and of never having applied its rhetoric on the necessity of liberalization toĀ communist governments. The essay compares traditional autocracies and Communist regimes:
[Traditional autocrats] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope.
[Revolutionary Communist regimes] claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands.
Kirkpatrick concluded that while the United States should encourage liberalization and democracy in autocratic countries, it should not do so when the government risks violent overthrow and should expect gradual change rather than immediate transformation.[52]Ā She wrote: “No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances … Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road [to democratic government] took seven centuries to traverse. … The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American policymakers”.[53]
1990s
During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again opposed to the foreign policy establishment, both during the Republican Administration of PresidentĀ George H. W. BushĀ and that of his Democratic successor, PresidentĀ Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence as a result of the end of the Soviet Union.[54]
After the decision of George H. W. Bush to leaveĀ Saddam HusseinĀ in power after the firstĀ Iraq WarĀ during 1991, many neoconservatives considered this policy and the decision not to endorse indigenous dissident groups such as theĀ KurdsĀ andĀ ShiitesĀ in theirĀ 1991ā1992 resistanceĀ to Hussein as a betrayal of democratic principles.[55][56][57][58][59]
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[60]
Within a few years of the Gulf War inĀ Iraq, many neoconservatives were endorsing the ouster of Saddam Hussein. On 19 February 1998, an open letter to President Clinton was published, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and later related groups such as theĀ Project for the New American Century, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.[61]
Neoconservatives were also members of the so-called “blue team“, which argued for a confrontational policy toward theĀ People’s Republic of ChinaĀ and strong military and diplomatic endorsement for theĀ Republic of ChinaĀ (also known as Formosa or Taiwan).
During the late 1990s, Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views as an endorsement ofĀ intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular origin, a few commentators have speculated that thisĀ ā along with endorsement of religion generally ā may have been a case of a “noble lie“, intended to protect public morality, or evenĀ tactical politics, to attract religious endorsers.[62]
The Bush campaign and the early Bush administration did not exhibit strong endorsement of neoconservative principles. As a presidential candidate, Bush had argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea ofĀ nation-building[63]Ā and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was managed without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives.[64]Ā Also early in the administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush’s administration as insufficiently supportive ofĀ IsraelĀ and suggested Bush’s foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.[65]
During Bush’s State of the Union speech of January 2002, he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that “constitute anĀ axis of evil” and “pose a grave and growing danger”. Bush suggested the possibility ofĀ preemptive war: “I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons”.[67][68]
Some major defense and national-security persons have been quite critical of what they believed was a neoconservative influence in getting the United States to go to war against Iraq.[69]
Former Nebraska Republican U.S. senator and Secretary of Defense,Ā Chuck Hagel, who has been critical of the Bush administration’s adoption of neoconservative ideology, in his bookĀ America: Our Next ChapterĀ wrote:
So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. … They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil.
Bush Doctrine
President Bush meets with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his staff at the Pentagon, 14 August 2006
TheĀ Bush DoctrineĀ of preemptive war was stated explicitly in theĀ National Security CouncilĀ (NSC) text “National Security Strategy of the United States”. published 20 September 2002: “We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed … even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. … The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively”.[70]
The choice not to use the word “preventive” in the 2002 National Security Strategy and instead use the word “preemptive” was largely in anticipation of the widely perceived illegality of preventive attacks in international law via both Charter Law and Customary Law.[71]
Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document had a strong resemblance to recommendations presented originally in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written during 1992 byĀ Paul Wolfowitz, during the first Bush administration.[72]
The Bush Doctrine was greeted with accolades by many neoconservatives. When asked whether he agreed with the Bush Doctrine,Ā Max BootĀ said he did and that “I think [Bush is] exactly right to say we can’t sit back and wait for the next terrorist strike on Manhattan. We have to go out and stop the terrorists overseas. We have to play the role of the global policeman. … But I also argue that we ought to go further”.[73]Ā Discussing the significance of the Bush Doctrine, neoconservative writerĀ William KristolĀ claimed: “The world is a mess. And, I think, it’s very much to Bush’s credit that he’s gotten serious about dealing with it. … The danger is not that we’re going to do too much. The danger is that we’re going to do too little”.[74]
2008 presidential election and aftermath
PresidentĀ George W. BushĀ and SenatorĀ John McCainĀ at the White House, March 5, 2008, after McCain became the Republican presumptive presidential nominee.
John McCain, who was the Republican candidate for theĀ 2008 United States presidential election, endorsed continuing the secondĀ Iraq War, “the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives”.Ā The New York TimesĀ reported further that his foreign policy views combined elements of neoconservatism and the main competing conservative opinion,Ā pragmatism, also known as realism:[75]
Among [McCain’s advisers] are several prominent neoconservatives, including Robert Kagan … [and] Max Boot…
‘It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John McCain’s soul,’ said Lawrence Eagleburger … who is a member of the pragmatist camp, … [but he] said, “there is no question that a lot of my far right friends have now decided that since you can’t beat him, let’s persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical issues.
Barack ObamaĀ campaigned for the Democratic nomination during 2008 by attacking his opponents, especiallyĀ Hillary Clinton, for originally endorsing Bush’s Iraq-war policies. Obama maintained a selection of prominent military officials from the Bush Administration includingĀ Robert GatesĀ (Bush’s Defense Secretary) andĀ David PetraeusĀ (Bush’s ranking general in Iraq).
2010s
By 2010, U.S. forces had switched from combat to a training role in Iraq and they left in 2011.[76]Ā The neocons had little influence in the Obama White House,[77][78]Ā and neo-conservatives have lost much influence in the Republican party since the rise ofĀ Tea Party Movement.
Several neoconservatives played a major role in theĀ Stop Trump movementĀ in 2016, in opposition to the Republican presidential candidacy ofĀ Donald Trump, due to his criticism of interventionist foreign policies, as well as their perception of him as an “authoritarian” figure.[79]Ā Since Trump took office, some neoconservatives have joined his administration, such asĀ Elliott Abrams.[80]Ā Neoconservatives have supported the Trump administration’s hawkish approach towards Iran[81]Ā and Venezuela,[82]Ā while opposing the administration’s withdrawal of troops from Syria[83]Ā and diplomatic outreach to North Korea.[84]
Evolution of opinions
Usage and general views
During the early 1970s, SocialistĀ Michael HarringtonĀ was one of the first to use “neoconservative” in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftistsĀ ā whom he derided as “socialists forĀ Nixon”Ā ā who had become more conservative.[9]Ā These people tended to remain endorsers ofĀ social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration with respect to foreign policy, especially by their endorsement of the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still endorsed theĀ welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.
Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a “liberal mugged by reality“, one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also distinguished three specific aspects of neoconservatism from previous types of conservatism: neo-conservatives had a forward-looking attitude from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour attitude of previous conservatives; they had a meliorative attitude, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; and they took philosophical ideas and ideologies very seriously.[85]
During January 2009 at the end of President George W. Bush’s second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at theĀ Carnegie Council for Ethics in International AffairsĀ and prominent critic of Neoconservatism, proposed the following as the “main characteristics of neoconservatism”: “a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms”, a “low tolerance for diplomacy”, a “readiness to use military force”, an “emphasis on US unilateral action”, a “disdain for multilateral organizations” and a “focus on the Middle East”.[86]
In foreign policy, the neoconservatives’ main concern is to prevent the development of a new rival.Ā Defense Planning Guidance, a document prepared during 1992 by Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz, is regarded by Distinguished Professor of the HumanitiesĀ John McGowanĀ at theĀ University of North CarolinaĀ as the “quintessential statement of neoconservative thought”. The report says:[87]
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
According to Lead Editor ofĀ e-International RelationsĀ Stephen McGlinchey: “Neo-conservatism is something of a chimera in modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political ideology that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism, yet for its supporters it is more of a ‘persuasion’ that individuals of many types drift into and out of. Regardless of which is more correct, it is now widely accepted that the neo-conservative impulse has been visible in modern American foreign policy and that it has left a distinct impact”.[88]
Neoconservatism first developed during the late 1960s as an effort to oppose the radical cultural changes occurring within the United States. Irving Kristol wrote: “If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of theĀ counterculture“.[90]Ā Norman Podhoretz agreed: “Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor”.[91]Ā Neoconservatives began to emphasize foreign issues during the mid-1970s.[92]
In 1979, an early study by liberalĀ Peter SteinfelsĀ concentrated on the ideas ofĀ Irving Kristol,Ā Daniel Patrick MoynihanĀ andĀ Daniel Bell. He noted that the stress on foreign affairs “emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism … The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological”.[93]
Neoconservative foreign policy is a descendant of so-calledĀ Wilsonian idealism. Neoconservatives endorseĀ democracy promotionĀ by the U.S. and other democracies, based on the claim that they think that human rights belong to everyone. They criticized theĀ United NationsĀ andĀ detenteĀ with theĀ Soviet Union. OnĀ domestic policy, they endorse aĀ welfare state, like European andĀ Canadian conservativesĀ and unlikeĀ American conservatives. According toĀ Norman Podhoretz, “‘the neo-conservatives dissociated themselves from the wholesale opposition to the welfare state which had marked American conservatism since the days of the New Deal’ and … while neoconservatives supported ‘setting certain limits’ to the welfare state, those limits did not involve ‘issues of principle, such as the legitimate size and role of the central government in the American constitutional order’ but were to be ‘determined by practical considerations'”.[94]
In April 2006,Ā Robert KaganĀ wrote inĀ The Washington PostĀ thatĀ RussiaĀ andĀ ChinaĀ may be the greatest “challenge liberalism faces today”:
The main protagonists on the side of autocracy will not be the petty dictatorships of the Middle East theoretically targeted by the Bush doctrine. They will be the two great autocratic powers, China and Russia, which pose an old challenge not envisioned within the new ‘war on terror’ paradigm. … Their reactions to the ‘color revolutions’ in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan were hostile and suspicious, and understandably so. … Might not the successful liberalization of Ukraine, urged and supported by the Western democracies, be but the prelude to the incorporation of that nation into NATO and the European Union ā in short, the expansion of Western liberal hegemony?[95][96]
In July 2008,Ā Joe KleinĀ wrote inĀ TimeĀ that today’s neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in cultivating friends. He questioned the sincerity of neoconservative interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying: “Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy”.[97]
In February 2009,Ā Andrew SullivanĀ wrote he no longer took neoconservatism seriously because its basic tenet was defense of Israel:[98]
The closer you examine it, the clearer it is that neoconservatism, in large part, is simply about enabling the most irredentist elements in Israel and sustaining a permanent war against anyone or any country who disagrees with the Israeli right. That’s the conclusion I’ve been forced to these last few years. And to insist that America adopt exactly the same constant-war-as-survival that Israelis have been slowly forced into … But America is not Israel. And once that distinction is made, much of the neoconservative ideology collapses.
Neoconservatives respond to charges of merely rationalizing aid for Israel by noting that their “position on the Middle East conflict was exactly congruous with the neoconservative position on conflicts everywhere else in the world, including places where neither Jews nor Israeli interests could be found ā not to mention the fact that non-Jewish neoconservatives took the same stands on all of the issues as did their Jewish confrĆØres”.[99]
Views on economics
While neoconservatism is concerned primarily with foreign policy, there is also some discussion of internal economic policies. Neoconservatism generally endorsesĀ free marketsĀ andĀ capitalism, favoringĀ supply-side economics, but it has several disagreements withĀ classical liberalismĀ andĀ fiscal conservatism: Irving Kristol states that neocons are more relaxed about budget deficits and tend to reject theĀ HayekianĀ notion that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is “the road to serfdom”.[100]Ā Indeed, to safeguard democracy, government intervention and budget deficits may sometimes be necessary, Kristol argues.
Further, neoconservative ideology stresses that while free markets do provide material goods in an efficient way, they lack the moral guidance human beings need to fulfill their needs. Morality can be found only in tradition, they say and contrary toĀ libertarianismĀ markets do pose questions that cannot be solved solely by economics. “So, as the economy only makes up part of our lives, it must not be allowed to take over and entirely dictate to our society”.[101]Ā Critics consider neoconservatism a bellicose and “heroic” ideology opposed to “mercantile” and “bourgeois” virtues and therefore “a variant of anti-economic thought”.[102]Ā Political scientistĀ Zeev SternhellĀ states: “Neoconservatism has succeeded in convincing the great majority of Americans that the main questions that concern a society are not economic, and that social questions are really moral questions”.[103]
Friction with other conservatives
Many moderate conservatives oppose neoconservative policies and have sharply negative views on it. For example,Ā Stefan HalperĀ and Jonathan Clarke (a libertarian based at Cato), in their 2004 book on neoconservatism,Ā America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order,[104]Ā characterized the neoconservatives at that time as uniting around three common themes:
A belief deriving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter.
An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it.
A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests.
In putting these themes into practice, neo-conservatives:
Analyze international issues in black-and-white, absolute moral categories. They are fortified by a conviction that they alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement is tantamount to defeatism.
Focus on the “unipolar” power of the United States, seeing the use of military force as the first, not the last, option of foreign policy. They repudiate the “lessons of Vietnam,” which they interpret as undermining American will toward the use of force, and embrace the “lessons of Munich,” interpreted as establishing the virtues of preemptive military action.
Disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic, analysis. They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions and instinctively antagonistic toward international treaties and agreements. “Global unilateralism” is their watchword. They are fortified by international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue.
Look to the Reagan administration as the exemplar of all these virtues and seek to establish their version of Reagan’s legacy as the Republican and national orthodoxy.[104]:10ā11
Starting during the 1980s, disputes concerning Israel and public policy contributed to a conflict withĀ paleoconservatives.Ā Pat BuchananĀ terms neoconservatism “aĀ globalist,Ā interventionist,Ā open borders ideology“.[105]Ā Paul GottfriedĀ has written that the neocons’ call for “permanent revolution” exists independently of their beliefs about Israel,[106]Ā characterizing the neos as “ranters out of a Dostoyevskian novel, who are out to practice permanent revolution courtesy of the U.S. government” and questioning how anyone could mistake them for conservatives.[107]
What make neocons most dangerous are not their isolated ghetto hang-ups, like hating Germans and Southern whites and calling everyone and his cousin an anti-Semite, but the leftist revolutionary fury they express.[107]
He has also argued that domestic equality and the exportability of democracy are points of contention between them.[108]
Responding to a question about neoconservatives in 2004,Ā William F. BuckleyĀ said: “I think those I know, which is most of them, are bright, informed and idealistic, but that they simply overrate the reach of U.S. power and influence”.[109]
Trotskyism allegation
Critics have argued that since the founders of neo-conservatism included ex-Trotskyists, Trotskyist traits continue to characterize neo-conservative ideologies and practices.[110]Ā During the Reagan administration, the charge was made that theĀ foreign policy of the Reagan administrationĀ was being managed by ex Trotskyists.[citation needed]Ā This claim was called a “myth” byĀ Lipset (1988, p.Ā 34), who was a neoconservative himself.[111]Ā This “Trotskyist” charge was repeated and widened by journalistĀ Michael LindĀ during 2003 to assert a takeover of theĀ foreign policy of the George W. Bush administrationĀ by former Trotskyists;[112]Ā Lind’s “amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of ‘the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement’ [in Lind’s words]” was criticized during 2003 by UniversityĀ ofĀ Michigan professor AlanĀ M. Wald,[113]Ā who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of “the New York intellectuals“.[114][115][116]
The charge that neoconservativism is related toĀ LeninismĀ has also been made.Ā Francis FukuyamaĀ identified neoconservatism with Leninism during 2006.[19]Ā He wrote that neoconservatives “believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will [substantially analogous to “will to power” of Nietzschean memory]. Leninism was a tragedy in itsĀ BolshevikĀ version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support”.[19]
Critics take issue with neoconservatives’ support for interventionistic foreign policy. Critics from theĀ leftĀ take issue with what they characterize asĀ unilateralismĀ and lack of concern withĀ international consensusĀ through organizations such as theĀ United Nations.[117][118][119]
Critics from both the left and right have assailed neoconservatives for the role Israel plays in their policies on the Middle East.[120][121]
Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared opinion as aĀ beliefĀ that national security is best attained by actively promoting freedom and democracy abroad as in theĀ democratic peace theoryĀ through the endorsement of democracy, foreign aid and in certain casesĀ military intervention. This is different from the traditional conservative tendency to endorse friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems.
Republican CongressmanĀ Ron PaulĀ has been a longtime critic of neoconservativism as an attack on freedom and the Constitution, including an extensive speech on the House floor addressing neoconservative beginnings and how neoconservatism is neither new nor conservative.[122]
In a column named “Years of Shame” commemorating the tenth anniversary of 9/11 attacks,Ā Paul KrugmanĀ criticized the neoconservatives for causing a war unrelated to 9/11 attacks and fought for wrong reasons.[123][124]
Imperialism and secrecy
John McGowan, professor of humanities at theĀ University of North Carolina, states after an extensive review of neoconservative literature and theory that neoconservatives are attempting to build anĀ American Empire, seen as successor to theĀ British Empire, its goal being to perpetuate a “Pax Americana“. As imperialism is largely considered unacceptable by the American media, neoconservatives do not articulate their ideas and goals in a frank manner in public discourse. McGowan states:[87]
Frank neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that imperialism runs so counter to American’s liberal tradition that it must … remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name … While Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder the white man’s burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that “only through stealth and anxious foresight” can the United States continue to pursue the “imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy”, but must be disavowed in light of “our anti-imperial traditions, and … the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse”… The Bush administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to “national security”, has kept as many of those actions as it can secret and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of government or international law.
In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of “dual loyalty” were leveled against Jewish neoconservatives from across the political spectrum. A heated debate ensued and the controversy continues into the present due to concerns over neoconservatives stance toward Iran.
An ABC News article providing an overview of the debate in the run up to the Iraq war stated:
Critics of U.S. Iraq policy, on the right and the left, have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism for asserting that certain members of Bush’s administration (namely Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy) have dual loyalty ā interests in both the United States and Israel.[125]
Patrick Buchanan issued a statement in a cover article forĀ The American Conservative: “Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon”.[126]
Jeffery Goldberg of the Atlantic interviewedĀ Joe KleinĀ in 2008:
My friend and former colleague Joe Klein has made himself quite the figure of controversy over the past few weeks. First, he suggested that Jewish neoconservatives have “divided loyalties;” then … he argued that McCain has surrounded himself with “Jewish neoconservatives” who want war with Iran.[127]
Joe Klein issued a refutation of the charges, stating that he was “anti-neoconservative”:
Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want. I just don’t want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not. In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don’t want to go to war with Iran. When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they’re wrong. I am anti-neoconservative. I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, “They don’t represent us, they don’t represent Israel.”[127]
Mickey Kaus of Slate noted that “Max Boot, Pete Wehner, Jennifer Rubin, Paul Mirengoff and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League all wrote confidently outraged responses to Klein’s raising of the “divided loyalties” and went on to opine that “[i]t should be possible to publicly debate whether some “Jewish neoconservatives,” among others, too easily convinced themselves that America’s and Israel’s interests happily coincided in the prosecution of the war”.[128]
Glen Greenwald also issued a response in support of Klein:
As I’ve documented previously, the very same right-wing advocates who scream “anti-semitism” at anyone, such as Klein, who raises the issue of devotion to Israel themselves constantly argue that American Jews do ā and should ā cast their votes in American elections based upon what is best for Israel. They nakedly trot out the “dual loyalty” argument in order to manipulate American Jews to vote Republican in U.S. elections (e.g.: “the GOP supports Israel and Obama doesn’t; therefore, American Jews shouldn’t vote for Obama”), while screaming “anti-semitism” the minute the premise is used by their political opponents.[129]
Barry RubinĀ argued that the neoconservative label is used as an antisemitic pejorative:[132]
First, ‘neo-conservative’ is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.
Notable people associated with neoconservatism[edit]
The list includes public people identified as personally neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisers, such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Politicians
George W. Bush announces his $74.7 billion wartime supplemental budget request as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz look on
John McCainĀ (deceased) ā former U.S. Representative & U.S. Senator from Arizona, 2000 Republican presidential candidate, 2008 Republican presidential nominee[159][160][161][162][163][164]
Mitch McConnellĀ ā U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader, former Senate Majority Whip, former Senate Minority Leader[165]
Tom RidgeĀ ā former U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania, 43rdĀ Governor of Pennsylvania, former Homeland Security Advisor, former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security[149]
Paul RyanĀ ā 54th Speaker of the House of Representatives, former U.S. Representative from Wisconsin, 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee[180][181][182]; though he rejects the term[183][184]
Kenneth AdelmanĀ ā former Director of Arms Control and Disarmament Agency[151]
William BennettĀ ā former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, former Director of the National Drug Control Policy and former U.S. Secretary of Education[185][190]
Eliot A. CohenĀ ā former State Department Counselor, now Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University[191][150]
Frank GaffneyĀ ā former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy[150][151][192]
Donald RumsfeldĀ ā former U.S. Representative from Illinois, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, former White House Chief of Staff, former U.S. Secretary of Defense[197][189]
Robert KaganĀ ā senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, historian, founder of theĀ Yale Political Monthly, adviser to Republican political campaigns and one of 25 members of an advisory board toĀ Hillary ClintonĀ at the State Department (Kagan calls himself a “liberal interventionist” rather than “neoconservative”)[214][215]
Arin, Kubilay Yado:Ā Think Tanks: The Brain Trusts of US Foreign Policy. Wiesbaden: VS Springer 2013.
Balint, Benjamin V.Ā Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left into the Neoconservative RightĀ (2010).
Dorrien, Gary.Ā The Neoconservative Mind.Ā ISBNĀ 1-56639-019-2, n attack from the Left.
Ehrman, John.Ā The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectual and Foreign Affairs 1945 ā 1994, Yale University Press, 2005,Ā ISBNĀ 0-300-06870-0.
Eisendrath, Craig R. and Melvin A. Goodman.Ā Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives are Putting The World at RiskĀ (Prometheus Books, 2004),Ā ISBNĀ 1-59102-176-6.
Friedman, Murray.Ā The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge University Press, 2006.Ā ISBNĀ 0-521-54501-3.
Grandin, Greg.”Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.” Metropolitan Books Henry Holt & Company, 2006.ISBNĀ 978-0-8050-8323-1.
Thompson, Bradley C. (with Yaron Brook).Ā Neoconservatism. An Obituary for an Idea. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers, 2010.Ā ISBNĀ 978-1-59451-831-7.
Story 1: President Trump: “Iran made a very big mistake”Ā — Option A: Strong Message and Done, Option B: One Missile Attack and Done, Option C: Total War With Iran and World Recession Due To Spike in Oil and Gas Prices — Videos —
Tucker: Washington is war-hungry
Pentagon releases footage of US drone being shot down by Iran
LIVE: President Trump first comments after Iran shoots down US Drone | June 20th 2019
US is bringing the Iranian economy to its knees: Nile Gardiner
Oil prices rise after Iran shoots down US drone
40% Chance of 2020 U.S.-Iran Military Conflict: Eurasia CEO
Iran shoots down US drone as tensions escalate
Video shows Iran shooting down US drone
Iran says it shot down US drone ‘violating Iranian air space’ amid growing tensions
Iran Shot Down U.S. Drone to Disrupt Trade in Persian Gulf, Senior U.S. Military Official Says
President Trump makes first comments after Iran shoots down U.S. Drone | ABC News Special Report
Iran says it’s ‘ready for war’
Iran shoots down US military spy drone | DW News
Iran says it will breach nuclear deal āin daysā as its uranium stockpile limit nears
Is The U.S. Going To War With Iran? | AJ+
Iran’s foreign minister accuses US, Mideast of provoking conflict
Was it all a bluff? After news leaked that President Donald Trump approved and then called off U.S. airstrikes on Iran last night, it emerged heād warned Tehran about an imminent attack while insisting he was against a war.
Today, as airlines began re-routing flights away from the Strait of Hormuz, Iranās Foreign Ministry called in the Swiss ambassador, who also represents U.S. interests, for talks.
Was the outreach why Trump abandoned the strikes? Or was this the latest example of the whipsaw approach from a president whoās twice attacked Syria but also backed away from using force after lashing out at Iran and North Korea?
The leak of Trumpās about-face also speaks volumes about the battle for influence in the White House. Hardliners clearly thought theyād convinced him to back a tough response to Iranās downing of a U.S. Navy drone. Yet Trump was elected on a pledge to pull out of Middle East wars.
The president, who governs with the cliffhanger style of his Apprentice TV show, thrives on keeping supporters hooked on dramatic twists.
But as his 2020 re-election campaign gains steam, the stakes now include the prospect of armed conflict and instability in a region that supplies a third of the worldās oil.
Global Headlines
Biden’s burden | Democratic front-runner Joe Biden is encountering the same pitfalls as other seasoned politicians whoāve found their experience and record can be a liability. The former Delaware senatorās struggles to defend his remarks this week about finding common ground with two segregationists is an early sign of the trouble he could have explaining a complicated voting record and his nostalgia for a Washington collegiality that has steadily diminished since he was first elected in 1972.
Border control | Trump praised Mexicoās efforts to crack down on migrants crossing the border into the U.S. after the two countries entered an agreement aimed at stemming the flow of people entering Mexico from Central America. Mexico will take greater control of its southern border and ask foreigners to register their arrival.
Osaka drama | Before Trump, Group of 20 summits were dull if worthy affairs. This yearās gathering in Osaka, Japan next week promises to be anything but, as the U.S. president holds talks with Chinaās Xi Jinping after threatening to escalate their trade conflict. The best-case scenario would be a pause in new U.S. tariffs and a resumption of negotiations that broke down in May. The worst-case would be a new Cold War between the two largest economies.
Favorites flushed | European Union leaders cast aside the candidates whoāve dominated the race to head the next EU Commission and will start from scratch less than two weeks before a self-imposed deadline. The decision at a summit in Brussels extends gridlock that has left investors in the dark over a series of critical posts including the next president of the European Central Bank.
Bad air | As climate change tops political agendas from Washington to New Delhi, thereās no solution in sight for the bad air choking Europe’s poorest countries. While the EUĀ has focused mostly on stability in the volatile Balkans, health problems and lost productivity from air pollution cost the continent more than 10 billion euros a year. Obsolete coal plants and cars spew smog and hundreds of thousands of people burn tires, wood and trash to stay warm.
What to Watch
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt will go head-to-head in the contest to become the U.K.ās next prime minister as they seek votes from the Conservative Partyās 160,000 grassroots members over the next month. Ukraineās Constitutional Court threw out a challenge to a decree by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy ordering early parliamentary elections. The ruling confirmed a vote will take place next month and a new government should be in place by the fall. Turkey reruns the election for mayor of Istanbul on Sunday, pitting former prime minister and ruling AK Party candidate Binali Yildirim against opposition challenger Ekrem Imamoglu, who was stripped of his narrow victory in the March 31 ballot.
And finally…The U.K. is poised to generate more energy from low-carbon sources than from fossil fuels for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear plants provided 48% of the nationās power in the first five months of this year. The U.K. has gone without burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, for the equivalent of 80 days so far in 2019, including one stretch of 18 days in a row.
–With assistance from Kathleen Hunter and Daniel Ten Kate.
Trump says Iran made ābig mistakeā by taking down US drone
By DEB RIECHMANNtoday
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 20, 2019, in Washington. Trump declared Thursday that “Iran made a very big mistake” in shooting down a U.S. drone but suggested it was an accident rather than a strategic error. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
WASHINGTON (AP) ā President Donald Trump declared Thursday that āIran made a very big mistakeā by shooting down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz but suggested it was a foolish error rather than an intentional escalation of the tensions that have led to rising fears of open military conflict.
Asked about a U.S. response, the president said pointedly, āYouāll soon find out.ā
TheĀ downing of the huge, unmanned aircraftĀ , which Iran portrayed as a deliberate defense of its territory rather than a mistake, was a stark reminder of the risk of military conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces as the Trump administration combines a āmaximum pressureā campaign of economic sanctions against Iran with a buildup of American forces in the region.
On Thursday, Iran called the sanctions āeconomic terrorism,ā insisted the drone had invaded its airspace and said it was taking its case to the United Nations in an effort to prove the U.S. was lying about the aircraft being over international waters. It accused the U.S. of āa very dangerous and provocative act.ā
The drone ā which has a wingspan wider than a Boeing 737 ā entered Iranian airspace ādespite repeated radio warningsā and was shot down by Iran, acting under the U.N. Charter which allows self-defense action āif an armed attack occurs,ā Iranās U.N. Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi said in a letter to the U.N. secretary-general.
Trump, who has said he wants to avoid war and negotiate with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, appeared to play down the significance of the shootdown.
He cast it as āa new wrinkle … a new fly in the ointment.ā Yet he also said that āthis country will not stand for it, that I can tell you.ā
Shortly before Trump spoke, Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, commander of U.S. Central Command air forces in the region, took a more pointed view of the shootdown in an area where Trump has blamed Iran for attacking shipping vessels.
āThis attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and free flow of commerce,ā he said.
The Trump administration has been putting increasing economic pressure on Iran for more than a year. It reinstated punishing sanctions following Trumpās decision to pull the U.S. out of an international agreement intended to limit Iranās nuclear program in exchange for relief from earlier sanctions.
The other world powers who remain signed on to the nuclear deal have set a meeting to discuss the U.S. withdrawal and Iranās announced plans to increase its uranium stockpile for June 28, a date far enough in the future to perhaps allow tensions to cool.
Citing Iranian threats, the U.S. recently sent an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region and deployed additional troops alongside the tens of thousands already there. All this has raised fears that a miscalculation or further rise in tensions could push the U.S. and Iran into an open conflict 40 years after Tehranās Islamic Revolution.
āWe do not have any intention for war with any country, but we are fully ready for war,ā Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami said in a televised address.
The paramilitary Guard, which answers only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said it shot down the drone at 4:05 a.m. Thursday when it entered Iranian airspace near the Kouhmobarak district in southern Iranās Hormozgan province. Kouhmobarak is about 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) southeast of Tehran.
The first U.S. reaction was Trumpās Thursday morning tweet of six forceful words: āIran made a very big mistake.ā
But later, while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said, āI would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down.ā
He said the American drone was unarmed and unmanned and āclearly over international waters.ā It would have āmade a big, big differenceā if someone had been inside, he said.
āI find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth,ā Trump said. āI think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it.ā
Taking issue with the U.S. version of where the attack occurred, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted that his country had retrieved sections of the military drone āin OUR territorial waters where it was shot down.ā He said, āWe donāt seek war but will zealously defend our skies, land & waters.ā
U.S. Gen. Guastella disputed that contention, telling reporters that the aircraft was 34 kilometers (21 miles) from the nearest Iranian territory and flying at high altitude when struck by a surface-to-air missile. The U.S. military has not commented on the mission of the remotely piloted aircraft that can fly higher than 10 miles in altitude and stay in the air for over 24 hours at a time.
One U.S. official said there was a second American aircraft in the area that was able to get video and imagery of the drone when it was shot down.
Congressional leaders came to the White House for an hour-long briefing in the Situation Room late Thursday with top national security officials including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and Army Secretary Mark Esper, whom Trump has said heāll nominate as Pentagon chief.
The Senateās top Democrat called the downing of the American drone ādeeply concerningā and accused the administration of not having an Iran strategy and keeping Congress and the rest of the nation in the dark.
āThe president needs to explain to the American people why heās driving us toward another endless conflict in the Middle East,ā said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she didnāt think Trump wanted war with Iran and the American people have āno appetiteā for it either. She said the U.S. needs to be āstrong and strategicā about protecting its interests but ācannot be reckless.ā
Talking tougher, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called Iran a āmurderous regimeā and said, āIf theyāre itching for a fight theyāre going to get one.ā
āWeāre a lot closer today than we were yesterday, and only God knows what tomorrow brings,ā said Graham, a Trump ally who talked with the president by telephone.
The senator also focused on the issue of Iranās nuclear ambitions, saying its leaders have refused to negotiate after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the international agreement to limit Iranian development of nuclear weapons.
Graham said itās imperative that the U.S. clearly tell the Iranians that any attempt to increase uranium enrichment will be seen as a āhostile act against the United States and our allies in Israel and will not go unanswered.ā
Another factor: This all comes as Trump is launching his re-election campaign. He ran for president promising to bring American troops home from the Middle East and Afghanistan and has repeatedly said he wants to keep America out of āendless wars.ā
Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary for President George W. Bush, cautioned against thinking about politics when weighing any response to Iran.
āI suspect a successful limited counter-strike, such as taking out the missile battery that fired at the drone or the sinking of an unmanned Iranian vessel, would be seen as a well-calibrated show of resolve and discipline,ā Fleischer said in an interview. He added that āif we do nothing, Iran may strike again thinking it has impunity.ā
Iran shoots down US surveillance drone, heightening tensions
By NASSER KARIMI and JON GAMBRELL29 minutes ago
In this Oct. 24, 2018, photo released by the U.S. Air Force, members of the 7th Reconnaissance Squadron prepare to launch an RQ-4 Global Hawk at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk on Thursday, June 20, 2019, amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington over its collapsing nuclear deal with world powers, American and Iranian officials said, though they disputed the circumstances of the incident. (Staff Sgt. Ramon A. Adelan/U.S. Air Force via AP)
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) ā Iranās Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone Thursday in the Strait of Hormuz, marking the first time the Islamic Republic directly attacked the American military amid tensions over Tehranās unraveling nuclear deal with world powers.
The two countries disputed the circumstances leading up to an Iranian surface-to-air missile bringing down the U.S. Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk, an unmanned aircraft with a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737 jetliner and costing over $100 million.
Iran said the drone āviolatedā its territorial airspace, while the U.S. called the missile fire āan unprovoked attackā in international airspace over the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf and President Donald Trump tweeted that āIran made a very big mistake!ā
Trump later appeared to play down the incident, telling reporters in the Oval Office that he had a feeling that āa general or somebodyā being āloose and stupidā made a mistake in shooting down the drone.
AP Graphic
The incident immediately heightened the crisis already gripping the wider region, which is rooted in Trump withdrawing the U.S. a year ago from Iranās 2015 nuclear deal and imposing crippling new sanctions on Tehran. Recently, Iran quadrupled its production of low-enriched uranium to be on pace to break one of the dealās terms by next week while threatening to raise enrichment closer to weapons-grade levels on July 7 if Europe doesnāt offer it a new deal.
Citing unspecified Iranian threats, the U.S. has sent an aircraft carrier to the Middle East and deployed additional troops alongside the tens of thousands already there. All this has raised fears that a miscalculation or further rise in tensions could push the U.S. and Iran into an open conflict 40 years after Tehranās Islamic Revolution.
āWe do not have any intention for war with any country, but we are fully ready for war,ā Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami said in a televised address.
The paramilitary Guard, which answers only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said it shot down the drone at 4:05 a.m. Thursday when it entered Iranian airspace near the Kouhmobarak district in southern Iranās Hormozgan province. Kouhmobarak is about 1,200 kilometers (750 miles) southeast of Tehran.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami. (Sepahnews via AP)
The drone took off from the southern Persian Gulf and collected data from Iranian territory, including the southern port of Chahbahar near Iranās border with Pakistan, the Guard said in comments that appeared aimed at showing it could track the aircraft.
The U.S. military has not commented on the mission of the remotely piloted aircraft that can fly higher than 10 miles in altitude and stay in the air for over 24 hours at a time.
Iran used its air defense system known as Third of Khordad to shoot down the drone ā a truck-based missile system that can fire up to 18 miles (30 kilometers) into the sky, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.
Iranian state TV later broadcast video it described as the moment the Guard launched the surface-to-air missile that struck the U.S. drone. Chants of āGod is great!ā could be heard as a fireball appeared in the darkened sky.
Typically, militaries worldwide call out to errant aircraft entering their airspace before firing. Itās unclear whether Iran gave any warning before opening fire. The U.S. military says Iran fired on and missed another drone last week near the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of all global oil moves.
The U.S. has been worried about international shipping through the strategic waterway since tankers were damaged in May and June in what Washington has blamed on limpet mines from Iran, although Tehran denied involvement.. On Wednesday in the United Arab Emirates, the U.S. Navy showed fragments of mines that it said bore āa striking resemblanceā to those seen in Iran
The RQ-4 Global Hawk was at least 34 kilometers from Iranian territory when it was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, commander of the U.S. Central Command. He said it was an attempt to disrupt U.S. efforts to monitor the Persian Gulf region.
But Salami, speaking to a crowd in the western city of Sanandaj, described the American drone as āviolating our national security border.ā
āBorders are our red line,ā the Revolutionary Guard general said. āAny enemy that violates the borders will be annihilated.ā
Iranās Foreign Ministry also said the drone entered Iranian airspace, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted it would take its case to the U.N. He later tweeted that Iran retrieved parts of the drone in its territorial waters.
Russian President Vladimir Putin urged caution, warning any war between Iran and the U.S. would be a ācatastrophe for the region as a minimum.ā
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged support for U.S. efforts to halt what he called escalating Iranian provocations.
āIn the last 24 hours, Iran has intensified its aggression against the United States and against all of us,ā he said.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed concern and urged all parties to āavoid any action that could inflame the situation,ā said U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric.
America stations some RQ-4 Global Hawks at the Al-Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, near the capital of Abu Dhabi. Associated Press journalists saw the drones on the baseās tarmac during a March 2016 visit by then-Vice President Joe Biden. The U.S. military occasionally publishes images from there of the drones, which have a distinctive hump-shaped front and an engine atop the fuselage.
Iran has claimed to have shot down U.S. drones before. In the most famous incident, in December 2011, Iran seized an RQ-170 Sentinel flown by the CIA to monitor Iranian nuclear sites after it entered Iranian airspace from neighboring Afghanistan. Iran later reverse-engineered the drone to create their own variants.
Elsewhere in the region Thursday, Saudi Arabia said Yemenās Iranian-backed Houthi rebels fired a rocket at a desalination plant in al-Shuqaiq, a city in the kingdomās Jizan province. The state-run Saudi Press Agency quoted military spokesman Col. Turki al-Maliki as saying it caused no damage or casualties.
The Yemeni rebel Al-Masirah satellite news channel earlier said the Houthis targeted a power plant in Jizan, near the kingdomās border with Yemen, with a cruise missile.
A coalition led by Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, has been battling the Houthis since March 2015 in Yemen, the Arab worldās poorest nation now pushed to the brink of famine by the conflict. In recent weeks, the Houthis have launched a new campaign sending missiles and bomb-laden drones into Saudi Arabia.
Story 2: Federal Reserve Board Votes To Keep Federal Funds Target Range of 2.25% to 2.5% Waiting For July 2019 Jobs Report and Second Quarter Real GDP Growth Rate Number — Videos
Trump slams Fed over interest rate policy
Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaks to media following interest rate decision ā 06/19/2019
Sen. Tillis Says Fed Made Mistake in December, Defers to Trump on Powell Demotion
The Federal Reserve didn’t cut rates, but does the rally need the Fed?
Steve Keen Says U.S. Heading for 2020 Recession
Cramer: Stocks would probably rise if Trump removed Powell as Fed chair
Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaks on monetary policy ā 06/04/2019
Fed wary of economic clouds, but leaves interest rates unchanged for now
Goldman Sees Fed ‘Not Likely to Cut’ Rates in July, Kostin Says
The Federal Fund Rate in 4 Minutes
Macro 4.1- Money Market and FED Tools (Monetary Policy)
Discount Rate and Federal Funds Rate
What is the Yield Curve, and Why is it Flattening?
Why Investors Are Obsessed With the Inverted Yield Curve
Here’s what experts are saying about the inverted yield curve
Trump expected Powell to be a ‘cheap-money’ Fed chairman
S&P 500 closes at new record as Wall Street bets Fed will lower rates, Dow surges nearly 250 points
The S&P 500 just closed at a record high ā Hereās what four experts say to watch
Stocks rallied on Thursday, led by strong gains in tech and energy shares, as Wall Street cheered the possibility that theĀ Federal ReserveĀ will cut interest rates next month.
TheĀ S&P 500Ā surged 1% to 2,954.18, a record close. The broad index also hit an intraday record of 2,958.06.Ā The Dow Jones Industrial AverageĀ closed 249.17 points higher at 26,753.17. TheĀ Nasdaq CompositeĀ gained 0.8% to end the day at 8,051.34.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell below 2% for the first time since November 2016.Ā Investors cheered the decline in the benchmark for mortgage rates and corporate bonds.
The energy sector rose more than 2% to lead all 11 S&P 500 sectors higher as oil prices jumped. Tech gained 1.4% after shares of Oracle surged more than 8%Ā on stronger-than-forecast earnings. General Electricās 2.8% rise pushed the industrials sector up more than 1.6% on the day.
āMarkets are based on numbers and perception. If the perception is rates are getting cut, thatās going to drive markets higher,ā said Kathy Entwistle, senior vice president of wealth management at UBS. āUBSā stance up until yesterday was we wouldnāt see any rate cuts this year. Now we see a much larger chance of a 50-basis-point cut.ā
The Fed said Wednesday it stands ready to battle growing global and domestic economic risks as they took stock of intensifying trade tensions and growing concerns about inflation. Most Fed policymakers slashed their rate outlook for the rest of the calendar year by approximately half a percentage point in the previous session, while ChairmanĀ Jerome PowellĀ said others agree the case for lower rates is building.
Policymakers also dropped āpatientā from the Fedās statement and acknowledged that inflation is ārunning belowā its 2% objective.
Market participants viewed the overall tone from the U.S. central bank as more dovish than expected. TradersĀ are now pricing in a 100% chance of a rate cutnext month, according to the CME FedWatch tool.
With Thursdayās gains, the market has now erased the steep losses recorded by the major indexes in May, which were sparked by trade fears. The S&P 500 and Dow both fell more than 6% while the Nasdaq lost 7.9% last month. The three indexes were up more than 7% for June.
China and the U.S. hiked tariffs on billions of dollars worth of their goods in May. Stocks turned around this month as traders bet the rising trade tensions, coupled with weaker economic data, would lead the Fed to ease its monetary policy stance.
The Fedās message on Wednesday sent the 10-year Treasury yield to as low as 1.974% before ending the day around 2.02%. The yield stood at 2.8% in January.
āThe FOMC reinforced the marketās conviction,ā said Steve Blitz, chief U.S. economist at TS Lombard, in a note. āBarring a dramatic turnaround in the data, the next move is a cut – perhaps even a 50bp reduction.ā
The dollar also took a hit against other major currencies. The dollar index dropped 0.5% to 96.65, led by a 0.6% slide in the euro. The yen and Canadian dollar also rose against the U.S. currency.
Energy shares got a boost from higher oil prices. The Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE) climbed 2.2% as shares of Exxon Mobil gained 1.7%. Oil prices surged 5.4% after a U.S. official said a drone was shot down over Iranian airspace.
Meanwhile, Slack shares surged more than 40% in their first day of trading. The stock closed above $38 after setting a reference price of $26.
The term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations,Ā the discount rate, andĀ reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.
Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.
Structure of the FOMC
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.
The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.
The Federal Open Market Committee votes 9-1 to keep the benchmark rate in a target range of 2.25% to 2.5%.
The action sets up a possible confrontation between Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and President Donald Trump, who has been pressuring the Fed to cut rates.
The Fed drops the word āpatientā in describing its approach to policy.
The central bank also leaves the door open somewhat to future cuts.
Eight members favor one cut this year, while the same number votes in favor of the status quo and one still wants a rate hike. Powell says in a press conference some officials believe the case for accommodation has āstrengthened.ā
A divided Federal Reserve held the line on interest rates Wednesday and indicated formally that no cuts are coming in 2019. The decision came amid divisions over what is ahead and still leaves open the possibility that policy loosening could happen before the end of the year depending on how conditions unfold.
The central bank predicts one or two rate cuts in its set of economic predictions, but not until 2020. Despite cautious wording in the post-meeting statement Wednesday, markets are still betting the Fed cuts, as soon as July.
In a decision closely watched by financial market participants clamoring for multiple cuts, central bank officials on the Federal Open Market Committee voted 9-1 to keep the benchmark rate in a target range of 2.25% to 2.5%, where it has been since Decemberās controversial quarter-point increase. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard voted to reduce the rate.
The action sets up a possible confrontation between Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and President Donald Trump, who has been pressuring the Fed to cut rates. Just Tuesday, TrumpĀ said āletās see what he doesā at the Fed meeting when asked if he still wants to demote Powell.
At the post-statement news conference, Powell was asked about his future as chairman. āI think the law is clear that I have a four year term, and I fully intend to serve it,ā he said.
The strong majority for this monthās decision contrasted with a sharp difference of opinion on what happens next.
The committee provided an important nod to those worried about slower growth: It dropped the word āpatientā inĀ describing its approach to policy. The characterization was a key part of the Fed āpivotā earlier this year that signaled to the market a more dovish approach to rates.
āThe Fed didnāt surprise investors with the decision to maintain rates, but the split vote tells us that a cut is on the way and itās increasingly likely that will be in July, as bond markets have been hoping,ā said Neil Birrell, chief investment officer at Premier Asset Management.
āThis was probably the compromise decision ā it wasnāt shocking and should offer some reassurance,ā Steve Rick, chief economist at CUNA Mutual Group, said in a note. āThe FOMC will still want to closely monitor the stress fractures from the bond market, middling housing and auto sales numbers, and an increasingly uncertain global economic landscape in the coming months.ā
The statement also changed wording to concede that inflation is ārunning belowā the Fedās 2% objective. In their forecast for headline inflation this year, officials slashed the estimate to 1.5% from Marchās 1.8%. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, is likely now to be 1.8% from Marchās 2%, according to the quarterly summary of economic projections also released Wednesday.
āIn light of these uncertaintiesā
The committee changed language from its May statement to indicate that economic activity is ārising at a moderate rate,ā a downgrade from āsolid.ā
In their baseline scenario, FOMC members said they still expect āsustained expansion of economic activityā and a move toward 2% inflation, but realize that āuncertainties about this outlook have increased.ā
āIn light of these uncertainties and muted inflation pressures, the Committee will closely monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook and will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2 percent objective,ā the statement said. The āact as appropriate to sustain the expansionā language mirrors a statement from Powell in early June.
Very reasonable to think Fed will cut rates twice this year: Strategist
The committee characterized the labor market as āstrongā with āsolidā jobs growth, despite Mayās disappointing nonfarm payrolls growth of 75,000. The statement further said that household spending āappears to have picked up from earlier in the year.ā
The changes came amid what appeared to be little consensus among the committee about where rates go next.
Divided Fed
According to the ādot plotā of individual membersā expectations, eight members favor one cut this year while the same number voted in favor of the status quo and one still wants a rate hike. Bullard and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari have led the public discussion about the potential for rate cuts, while other members have been less firm.
Into 2020, the Fed consensus was a bit stronger, with nine members wanting a cut to a funds rate around 2.1%. The direction changes, though, in 2021, with indications of an increase of about a quarter-point, culminating in an expected long-run value of 2.5%. The funds rate most recently was trading at 2.37%.
Traders in the thin and volatile funds market had been pricing in a 26% chance of a cut at this weekās meeting. Later in the year, though, the probability for a July easing rose to 82.5% and the chances of a second cut in December were most recently at 60.4%. The market expects a third cut to come around March of 2020.
While the statement language offered some significant changes, estimates in the summary of economic projections, other than inflation, moved little from March. GDP growth is still expected to be 2.1% for the year ā it was 3.1% in the first quarter, and the Atlanta Fed is forecasting a 2% gain in the second quarter. The unemployment rate is now expected to hold at a 50-year low of 3.6%, against the March forecast of 3.7%.
The yield on the benchmarkĀ 10-year Treasury note fell below 2% for the first time since November 2016 on Wednesday ā breaching a key psychological level.
The policymaking committee of the Fed also dropped the word āpatientā from its statement, a sign interpreted by some investors as a hint that the central bank hasnāt abandoned the idea of a rate cut in 2019.
A chart showing U.S. 10-year treasury yield below 2% as of 8:52 p.m. ET Wednesday.
CNBC
The yield on the benchmarkĀ 10-year Treasury noteĀ fell below 2% for the first time since November 2016 on Wednesday ā breaching a key psychological level ā after the Federal Reserve struck a more dovish tone in its June policy statement and Chair Jerome Powell said that the case for easier monetary policy had strengthened.
Though the central bankĀ maintained the target overnight lending rate, that decision was accompanied by a growing number of officials open to one rate cut by the end of 2019 with eight members in favor. However, the consensus still didnāt expect a reduction until 2020 at the earliest.
The policymaking committee of the Fed also dropped the word āpatientā from its statement, a sign interpreted by some investors as a hint that the central bank hasnāt abandoned the idea of a rate cut in 2019. The Fed tweaked its statement to acknowledge that inflation is ārunning belowā its 2% objective.
At around 8:28 p.m. ET, the yield on the benchmarkĀ 10-year Treasury note, which moves inversely to price, declined below 2% to around 1.992% ā its lowest level since November 2016. The yield on the 2-year slipped to 1.7168%, its lowest level since 2017. The 3-month Treasury bill yield ticked lower to 2.175%, as of 7:30 p.m. ET.
While stock investors and home buyers may initially cheer the drop in the benchmark for corporate bond and mortgage rates, the return to levels not seen in more than two years raises serious questions about the state of the economy.
Softer economic gauges like Mayās anemic jobs report ā which showed thatĀ the U.S. economy added just 75,000 positionsĀ ā and aĀ lackluster consumer pricing printĀ suggested to economists and fixed-income traders earlier this month that the central bank may have to assure markets of its willingness to step in if GDP growth decelerates.
Speaking to reporters after the central bank meeting, Powell said policymakers are worried about certain economic data and see an improving case for easier policy.
āOverall, our policy discussion focused on the appropriate response to the uncertain environment,ā he said. āMany participants now see the case for somewhat more accommodative policy has strengthened,ā Powell said.
Traders are now pricing in a more than 80% chance of a rate cut in July and 70% probability of another reduction in September, according to the CME Groupās FedWatch tool.
āIt was largely what the market was looking for: I donāt think they went too far as to spook the market in any way,ā said Tom Garretson, a fixed-income strategist at RBC. āSeeing that eight [officials] are seeing a rate cut this year was dovish.ā
āThis is mostly an inflation story,ā he added. āIf you look at GDP forecast for 2020 theyāre up to 2% from 1.9% … even if they were worried about tariffs, it didnāt show up in their forecast.ā
The Fed has in recent months been grappling with a consistent shortfall in inflation relative to its self-imposed 2% target. The Fedās preferred inflation gauge, the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index,Ā increased 1.6% in the year to AprilĀ after gaining 1.5% in March.
Treasury inflation-protected securities ā bonds whose payouts are indexed to consumer prices ā show that price growth expectations have slid in recent months. Inflation is a threat to the value of a bondās fixed coupon and principal payments.
Wednesdayās decision from the Federal Open Market Committee came after President Donald Trumpās repeated criticism of the Fed and Jerome Powell specifically for raising rates and tightening monetary conditions over the last year. Trump, who sees recent Fed policy asĀ damaging to American marketsandĀ undermining his bargaining position in trade talks, has broken with tradition in his frequent and vocal criticism of the central bank.
Asked Tuesday whether he wants to remove Powell as Fed Chair, Trump said āLetās see what he does.ā Trumpās comments came after Bloomberg News reported Tuesday morning that the White House had looked into demoting Powell in February.
Trump also said Tuesday he will be having an āextended meetingā next week with the Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the G-20 meeting in Japan.
Meanwhile, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said Tuesday thatĀ the central bank may need to ease monetary policyĀ in the coming months if inflation doesnāt bounce back toward its target.
āIn the absence of improvement, such that the sustained return of inflation to our aim is threatened, additional stimulus will be required,ā Draghi said.
ā CNBCās Eustance Huang and Jeff Cox contributed reporting.
The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is theĀ federal funds effective rate.
TheĀ federal funds target rateĀ is determined by a meeting of the members of theĀ Federal Open Market CommitteeĀ which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.
The Federal Reserve usesĀ open market operationsĀ to make the federal funds effective rate follow the federal funds target rate. The target rate is chosen in part to influence theĀ money supplyĀ in theĀ U.S. economy[3]
Contents
Mechanism
Financial institutions are obligated by law to maintain certain levels of reserves, either asĀ reservesĀ with the Fed or as vault cash. The level of these reserves is determined by the outstanding assets and liabilities of each depository institution, as well as by the Fed itself, but is typically 10%[4]Ā of the total value of the bank’sĀ demand accountsĀ (depending on bank size). In the range of $9.3 million to $43.9 million, forĀ transaction depositsĀ (checking accounts,Ā NOWs, and other deposits that can be used to make payments) the reserve requirement in 2007ā2008 was 3 percent of the end-of-the-day daily average amount held over a two-week period. Transaction deposits over $43.9 million held at the same depository institution carried a 10 percent reserve requirement.
For example, assume a particular U.S. depository institution, in the normal course of business, issues a loan. This dispenses money and decreases the ratio of bank reserves to money loaned. If its reserve ratio drops below the legally required minimum, it must add to its reserves to remain compliant with Federal Reserve regulations. The bank can borrow the requisite funds from another bank that has a surplus in its account with the Fed. The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is the federal fundsĀ effectiveĀ rate.
TheĀ federal funds target rateĀ is set by the governors of the Federal Reserve, which they enforce byĀ open market operationsĀ and adjustments in the interest rate on reserves.[5]Ā The target rate is almost always what is meant by the media referring to the Federal Reserve “changing interest rates.” The actual federal funds rate generally lies within a range of that target rate, as the Federal Reserve cannot set an exact value through open market operations.
Another way banks can borrow funds to keep up their required reserves is by taking a loan from the Federal Reserve itself at theĀ discount window. These loans are subject to audit by the Fed, and the discount rate is usually higher than the federal funds rate. Confusion between these two kinds of loans often leads to confusion between the federal funds rate and the discount rate. Another difference is that while the Fed cannot set an exact federal funds rate, it does set the specific discount rate.
The federal funds rate target is decided by the governors atĀ Federal Open Market CommitteeĀ (FOMC) meetings. The FOMC members will either increase, decrease, or leave the rate unchanged depending on the meeting’s agenda and the economic conditions of the U.S. It is possible to infer the market expectations of the FOMC decisions at future meetings from theĀ Chicago Board of TradeĀ (CBOT) Fed FundsĀ futures contracts, and these probabilities are widely reported in the financial media.
Applications
Interbank borrowingĀ is essentially a way for banks to quickly raise money. For example, a bank may want to finance a major industrial effort but may not have the time to wait for deposits or interest (on loan payments) to come in. In such cases the bank will quickly raise this amount from other banks at an interest rate equal to or higher than the Federal funds rate.
Raising the federal funds rate will dissuade banks from taking out such inter-bank loans, which in turn will make cash that much harder to procure. Conversely, dropping the interest rates will encourage banks to borrow money and therefore invest more freely.[6]Ā This interest rate is used as a regulatory tool to control how freely the U.S. economy operates.
By setting a higher discount rate the Federal Bank discourages banks from requisitioning funds from the Federal Bank, yet positions itself as aĀ lender of last resort.
Comparison with LIBOR
Though theĀ London Interbank Offered RateĀ (LIBOR) and the federal funds rate are concerned with the same action, i.e. interbank loans, they are distinct from one another, as follows:
The target federal funds rate is a target interest rate that is set by the FOMC for implementing U.S. monetary policies.
The (effective) federal funds rate is achieved through open market operations at the Domestic Trading Desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which deals primarily in domestic securities (U.S. Treasury and federal agencies’ securities).[7]
LIBOR is based on a questionnaire where a selection of banks guess the rates at which they could borrow money from other banks.
LIBOR may or may not be used to derive business terms. It is not fixed beforehand and is not meant to have macroeconomic ramifications.[8]
Predictions by the market
Considering the wide impact a change in the federal funds rate can have on the value of the dollar and the amount of lending going to new economic activity, the Federal Reserve is closely watched by the market. The prices of Option contracts on fed funds futures (traded on theĀ Chicago Board of Trade) can be used to infer the market’s expectations of future Fed policy changes. Based on CME Group 30-Day Fed Fund futures prices, which have long been used to express the marketās views on the likelihood of changes in U.S. monetary policy, theĀ CME Group FedWatch toolĀ allows market participants to view the probability of an upcoming Fed Rate hike. One set of suchĀ implied probabilitiesĀ is published by the Cleveland Fed.
As of 19Ā DecemberĀ 2018Ā the target range for the Federal Funds Rate is 2.25ā2.50%.[9]Ā This represents the ninth increase in the target rate since tightening began in December 2015.[10]
The last full cycle of rate increases occurred between June 2004 and June 2006 as rates steadily rose from 1.00% to 5.25%. The target rate remained at 5.25% for over a year, until the Federal Reserve began lowering rates in September 2007. The last cycle of easing monetary policy through the rate was conducted from September 2007 to December 2008 as the target rate fell from 5.25% to a range of 0.00ā0.25%. Between December 2008 and December 2015 the target rate remained at 0.00ā0.25%, the lowest rate in the Federal Reserve’s history, as a reaction to theĀ Financial crisis of 2007ā2008Ā and itsĀ aftermath. According to Jack A. Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank, one reason for this unprecedented move of having a range, rather than a specific rate, was because a rate of 0% could have had problematic implications for money market funds, whose fees could then outpace yields.[11]
Explanation of federal funds rate decisions
When theĀ Federal Open Market CommitteeĀ wishes to reduce interest rates they will increase the supply of money by buyingĀ government securities. When additional supply is added and everything else remains constant, the price of borrowed funds ā the federal funds rate ā falls. Conversely, when the Committee wishes to increase the federal funds rate, they will instruct the Desk Manager to sell government securities, thereby taking the money they earn on the proceeds of those sales out of circulation and reducing theĀ money supply. When supply is taken away and everything else remains constant, the interest rate will normally rise.[12]
The Federal Reserve has responded to a potential slow-down by lowering the target federal funds rate duringĀ recessionsĀ and other periods of lower growth. In fact, the Committee’s lowering has recently predated recessions,[13]Ā in order to stimulate the economy and cushion the fall. Reducing the federal funds rate makes money cheaper, allowing an influx of credit into the economy through all types of loans.
The charts linked below show the relation betweenĀ S&P 500Ā and interest rates.
Bill GrossĀ ofĀ PIMCOĀ suggested that in the prior 15 years ending in 2007, in each instance where the fed funds rate was higher than theĀ nominal GDPĀ growth rate, assets such as stocks and housing fell.[32]
International effects
A low federal funds rate makes investments inĀ developing countriesĀ such as China or Mexico more attractive. A high federal funds rate makes investments outside the United States less attractive. The long period of a very low federal funds rate from 2009 forward resulted in an increase in investment in developing countries. As the United States began to return to a higher rate in 2013 investments in the United States became more attractive and the rate of investment in developing countries began to fall. The rate also affects the value of currency, a higher rate increasing the value of the U.S. dollar and decreasing the value of currencies such as theĀ Mexican peso.[33]
^Ā Peter S. Goodman, Keith Bradsher and Neil Gough (March 16, 2017).Ā “The Fed Acts. Workers in Mexico and Merchants in Malaysia Suffer”.Ā The New York Times. RetrievedĀ March 18,2017.Ā Rising interest rates in the United States are driving money out of many developing countries, straining governments and pinching consumers around the globe.
The termĀ yield curveĀ refers to the relationship between the short- and long-term interest rates ofĀ fixed-income securitiesĀ issued by the U.S. Treasury. AnĀ inverted yield curveĀ occurs when short-term interest rates exceed long-term rates.
From an economic perspective, an inverted yield curve is a noteworthy event. Below, we explain this rare phenomenon, discuss its impact on consumers and investors, and tell you how to adjust your portfolio to account for it.
Interest Rates and Yield Curves
Typically, short-term interest rates are lower than long-term rates, so the yield curve slopes upwards, reflecting higher yields for longer-term investments. This is referred to as aĀ normal yield curve. When theĀ spreadĀ between short-term and long-term interest rates narrows, the yield curve begins to flatten. AĀ flat yield curveĀ is often seen during the transition from a normal yield curve to an inverted one.
Figure 1Ā ā A normal yield curve
What Does an Inverted Yield Curve Suggest?
Historically, an inverted yield curve has been viewed as an indicator of a pending economicĀ recession. When short-term interest rates exceed long-term rates,Ā market sentimentĀ suggests that the long-term outlook is poor and that the yields offered by long-termĀ fixed incomeĀ will continue to fall.
More recently, this viewpoint has been called into question, as foreign purchases of securities issued by the U.S. Treasury have created a high and sustained level of demand for products backed by U.S. government debt. When investors are aggressively seekingĀ debt instruments, the debtor can offer lower interest rates. When this occurs, many argue that it is theĀ laws of supply and demand, rather than impending economic doom and gloom, that enable lenders to attract buyers without having to pay higher interest rates.
Figure 2Ā ā An inverted yield curve: note the inverse relationship between yield and maturity
Inverted yield curves have been relatively rare, due in large part to longer-than-average periods between recessions since the early 1990s. For example, the economic expansions that began in March 1991, November 2001 and June 2009 were three of the four longest economic expansions since World War II. During these long periods, the question often arises as to whether an inverted yield curve can happen again.
Economic cycles, regardless of their length, have historically transitioned from growth to recession and back again. Inverted yield curves are an essential element of these cycles, preceding every recession since 1956. Considering the consistency of this pattern, an inverted yield will likely form again if the current expansion fades to recession.
Upward sloping yield curves are a natural extension of the higher risks associated with long maturities. In a growing economy, investors also demand higher yields at the long end of the curve to compensate for theĀ opportunity costĀ of investing in bonds versus other asset classes, and to maintain an acceptable spread over inflation rates.
As the economic cycle begins to slow, perhaps due to interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve Bank, the upward slope of the yield curve tends to flatten as short-term rates increase and longer yields stay stable or decline slightly. In this environment, investors see long-term yields as an acceptable substitute for the potential of lower returns in equities and other asset classes, which tend to increase bond prices and reduce yields.
Inverted Yield Curve Impact on Consumers
In addition to its impact on investors, an inverted yield curve also has an impact on consumers. For example, homebuyers financing their properties withĀ adjustable-rate mortgagesĀ (ARMs) have interest-rate schedules that are periodically updated based on short-term interest rates. When short-term rates are higher than long-term rates, payments on ARMs tend to rise. When this occurs,Ā fixed-rateĀ loans may be more attractive than adjustable-rate loans.
Lines of creditĀ are affected in a similar manner. In both cases, consumers must dedicate a larger portion of their incomes toward servicing existing debt. This reduces expendable income and has a negative effect on the economy as a whole.
The Formation of an Inverted Yield Curve
As concerns of an impending recession increase, investors tend to buy long Treasury bonds based on the premise that they offer a safe harbor from falling equities markets, provideĀ preservation of capitalĀ and have potential for appreciation in value as interest rates decline. As a result of the rotation to long maturities, yields can fall below short-term rates, forming an inverted yield curve. Since 1956, equities have peaked six times after the start of an inversion, and the economy has fallen into recession within seven to 24 months.
As of 2017, the most recent inverted yield curve first appeared in August 2006, as the Fed raised short-term interest rates in response to overheating equity, real estate and mortgage markets. The inversion of the yield curve preceded the peak of the Standard & Poorās 500 in October 2007 by 14 months and the official start of the recession in December 2007 by 16 months. However, a growing number of 2018 economic outlooks from investment firms are suggesting that an inverted yield curve could be on the horizon, citing the narrowing spread between short- and long-dated Treasuries.
If history is any precedent, the currentĀ business cycleĀ will progress, and slowing in the economy may eventually become evident. If concerns of the next recession rise to the point where investors see the purchase of long-dated Treasuries as the best option for their portfolios, there is a high likelihood that the next inverted yield curve will take shape.
Inverted Yield Curve Impact on Fixed-Income Investors
A yield curve inversion has the greatest impact on fixed-income investors. In normal circumstances,Ā long-term investmentsĀ have higher yields; because investors are risking their money for longer periods of time, they are rewarded with higherĀ payouts. An inverted curve eliminates theĀ risk premiumĀ for long-term investments, allowing investors to get better returns withĀ short-term investments.
When the spread between U.S. Treasuries (a risk-free investment) and higher-risk corporate alternatives is at historical lows, it is often an easy decision to invest in lower-risk vehicles. In such cases, purchasing a Treasury-backed security provides a yield similar to the yield onĀ junk bonds,Ā corporate bonds,Ā real estate investment trustsĀ (REITs) and other debt instruments, but without the risk inherent in these vehicles.Ā Money market fundsĀ andĀ certificates of depositĀ (CDs) may also be attractiveĀ ā particularly when a one-year CD is paying yields comparable to those on a 10-yearĀ Treasury bond.
Inverted Yield Curve Impact on Equity Investors
When the yield curve becomes inverted,Ā profit marginsĀ fall for companies that borrow cash at short-term rates and lend at long-term rates, such as community banks. Likewise, hedge funds are often forced to take on increased risk in order to achieve their desired level of returns.
In fact, a bad bet on Russian interest rates is largely credited for the demise ofĀ Long-Term Capital Management, a well-known hedge fund run by bond trader John Meriwether.
Despite their consequences for some parties, yield-curve inversions tend to have less impact onĀ consumer staplesĀ and healthcare companies, which are not interest-rate dependent. This relationship becomes clear when an inverted yield curve precedes a recession. When this occurs, investors tend to turn toĀ defensive stocks, such as those in the food, oil and tobacco industries, which are often less affected by downturns in the economy.
The Bottom Line
While experts question whether or not an inverted yield curve remains a strong indicator of pending economic recession, keep in mind that history is littered with portfolios that were devastated when investors blindly followed predictions about how “it’s different this time.” Most recently, shortsighted equity investors spouting this mantra participated in the “tech wreck,” snapping up shares in tech companies at inflated prices even though these firms had no hope of ever making a profit.
If you want to be a smart investor, ignore theĀ noise. Instead of spending time and effort trying to figure out what the future will bring, construct your portfolio based on long-term thinking and long-term convictionsĀ ā not short-term market movements.
For your short-term income needs, do the obvious: choose the investment with the highest yield, but keep in mind that inversions are an anomaly and they don’t last forever. When the inversion ends, adjust your portfolio accordingly.
Story 3: Creepy, Sleepy, Dopey, Joey Biden in Praise of Civility of Democrat Segregationist Senators Eastland (Mississippi) and Talmadge (Georgia) Who Got Things Done — Radical Extremist Democrats (REDS) Attack Biden — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers and Big Lie Media Playing Identity Politics and Divide and Conquer — Videos —
Bidenās ties to segregationist senator spark campaign tension
by Matt ViserĀ andĀ Annie Linskey, Washington Post,Ā Updated:Ā June 20, 2019- 10:59 PM
Joe Biden was a freshman senator, the youngest member of the august body, when he reached out to an older colleague for help on one of his early legislative proposals: The courts were ordering racially segregated school districts to bus children to create more integrated classrooms, a practice Biden opposed and wanted to change.
“I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help during this week’s Committee meeting in attemptingto bring my antibusing legislation to a vote,” Biden wrote on June 30, 1977.
The recipient of Biden’s entreaty was Sen. James Eastland, at the time a well-known segregationist who had called blacks “an inferior race” and once vowed to prevent blacks and whites from eating together in Washington. The exchange, revealed in a series of letters, offers a new glimpse into an old relationship that erupted this week as a major controversy for Biden’s presidential campaign.Biden on Wednesday night described his relationship with Eastland as one he “had to put up with.” He said of his relationships with Eastland and another staunch segregationist and southern Democrat, Sen. Herman Talmadge of Georgia, that “the fact of the matter is that we were able to do it because we were able to win ā we were able to beat them on everything they stood for.”
But the letters show a different type of relationship, one in which they were aligned on a legislative issue. Biden said at the time that he did not think that busing was the best way to integrate schools in Delaware and that systemic racism should be dealt with by investing in schools and improving housing policies.
The letters were provided Thursday to the Washington Post by the University of Mississippi, which houses Eastlandās archived papers. They were reported in April by CNN.
Biden’s campaign late Thursday issued a statement saying that “the insinuation that Joe Biden shared the same views as Eastland on segregation is a lie.”
“Plain and simple. Joe Biden has dedicated his career to fighting for civil rights,” the statement said.
The controversy over Biden’s comments this week have continued to reverberate at a crucial time in the campaign, with matters of race dominating the political discussion ahead of several prominent gatherings, including the first presidential debate next week and a multicandidate event before black voters in South Carolina on Friday. It has emerged as a complex political problem for Biden, who has been trying to campaign as a civil rights champion while explaining past views that are out of step with today’s Democratic base.
Biden’s Wednesday remarks sparked one of the sharpest intra-Democrat exchanges of the campaign, when Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, one of his black 2020 rivals, criticized both Biden’s work with segregationists and the language that he used in describing it.
On Wednesday, Biden called Booker. Biden’s campaign also distributed talking points to supporters, emphasizing that Eastland and Talmadge “were people who he fundamentally disagreed with on the issue of civil rights.”
Late Thursday, the former vice president met with a small group that included black members of Congress, one of the participants said.
Divisions also emerged in Biden’s campaign over how he should handle such situations. Aides alternately argued that he simply misspoke in telling the anecdote, that he shouldn’t be telling it at all or that his remarks demonstrate his ability to work with those with whom he disagrees and the words were being purposefully twisted for political gain.
The letters show that Biden’s courtship of Eastland started in 1972, before he had taken office, and that he wrote to the older senator listing his top six committee assignment requests, with Foreign Relations and Judiciary at the top. A few weeks later, Biden thanked Eastland, writing that he was “flattered and grateful” for his help. He also referred to the December 1972 car crash that killed his wife and daughter and injured his two sons.
“Despite my preoccupation with family matters at this time, I intend to place the highest priority on attending to my committee responsibilities,” Biden wrote.
Biden supporters have repeatedly pointed to his efforts on civil rights issues to cast him as a champion of equality. Not only did he share an eight-year partnership with the first black president, he also worked alongside black leaders throughout his career on extending the Voting Rights Act, amending the Fair Housing Act and creating the holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.et in the debate over the merits of busing as a solution to greater integration, Biden’s avowed stance against it put him at odds with some civil rights leaders.
It was in that context that he courted the support of Eastland ā at the time the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee ā as well as other senators.
In one letter, on March 2, 1977, Biden outlined legislation he was filing to restrict busing practices.
“My bill strikes at the heart of the injustice of court ordered busing,” he wrote to Eastland. “It prohibits the federal courts from disrupting our educational system in the name of the constitution where there is no evidence that the governmental officials intended to discriminate.”
“I believe there is growing sentiment in the Congress to curb unnecessary busing,” he added. The Senate two years earlier had passed a Biden amendment that prohibited the federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare from ordering busing to achieve school integration.
“That was the first time the U.S. Senate took a firm stand in opposition to busing,” Biden wrote. “The Supreme Court seems to have recognized that busing simply cannot be justified in cases where state and local officials intended no discrimination.”
In later letters to Eastland, Biden continued pushing his legislation.
“I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help during this week’s Committee meeting in attempting to bring my antibusing legislation to a vote,” Biden wrote on June 30, 1977.
The next year, he continued to push for antibusing legislation and again wrote to Eastland.
“Since your support was essential to having our bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee, I want to personally ask your continued support and alert you to our intentions,” Biden wrote on Aug 22, 1978. “Your participation in floor debate would be welcomed.”
After Bidenās remarks at the Wednesday night fund-raiser, advisers played down his comments about Eastland as a garbled rendition of a familiar Biden anecdote. In particular, they sought to excuse Biden for saying that Eastland didnāt refer to him as āboyā ā an insult leveled at black men ā but as āson.ā
“He just misspoke,” said one Biden adviser. “The way Biden usually tells the story, he says Eastland didn’t call him ‘senator,’ he called him ‘son,’ ” the adviser said. “Eastland called him ‘boy’ and ‘son’ also. This was Eastland’s way of diminishing young senators.”
In the campaign statement Thursday, Biden’s national press secretary, Jamal Brown, said Biden’s “strong support for equal housing, equal education and equal job opportunities were clear to all Delawareans in the 1970s.”
Biden sought to ensure that black students received “the resources necessary to deliver the quality education they deserved,” he said.
Brown added that throughout his public life, Biden “fought the institutional problems that created de facto segregated school systems and neighborhoods in the first place: redlining, school lines drawn to keep races and classes separate and housing patterns and discrimination.”
Almost the entire Democratic field is set to attend a fish fry Friday night hosted by House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a leading black figure in the state and one who has remained supportive of Biden.
It would be the first public appearance Biden is making with the same Democratic presidential hopefuls who have heaped criticism on him for the comment.
In demanding an apology, Booker said Wednesday that Biden’s “relationships with proud segregationists are not the model for how we make America a safer and more inclusive place for black people, and for everyone.”
Asked about Booker’s remarks by reporters, Biden declined to offer an apology and instead demanded one from Booker. The two men later spoke privately.
āCory shared directly what he said publicly ā including helping Vice President Biden understand why the word āboyā is painful to so many,ā said Sabrina Singh, a Booker campaign spokeswoman. āCory believes that Vice President Biden should take responsibility for what he said and apologize to those who were hurt.ā
Biden’s campaign would not elaborate on the call, but it is clear the topic could linger over the coming days.
Biden has scheduled a sit-down interview with MSNBC, his campaign has been sending out talking points to surrogates, and some black supporters are eager to hear the former vice president offer a fuller explanation.
“I think he’s got to address it head on and show people what his line of thinking was,” said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist in South Carolina who is close with Biden’s team. “I don’t think they need to get off course with their strategy. I just think they have to address it as it comes up and move on.”
Other Biden supporters, however, think he’s taking just the right approach and standing by his long-held beliefs.
I encouraged campaign staff that I know to say: ‘Don’t back off on this. This is precisely why you’re the right guy in the right place at the right time.’ And I was glad to see that he didn’t,” said Dave O’Brien, a longtime Biden supporter in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
āYou know that some of the other issues, heās got to evolve with the times, which he has,ā OāBrien added. āBut there are points where you need to make a stand, so I was very glad to see him not back off on this issue.ā
Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, speaks at the Poor People’s Moral Action Congress presidential forum in Washington, Monday, June 17, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Joe Biden refused calls to apologize Wednesday for saying that the Senate āgot things doneā with ācivilityā even when the body included segregationists with whom he disagreed.
His rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, including the two major black candidates in the contest, roundly criticized Bidenās comments. But Biden didnāt back down and was particularly defiant in the face of criticism from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who said the former vice president should apologize for his remarks.
Biden countered that it was Booker who should apologize because the senator āshould know betterā than to question his commitment to civil rights.
āThereās not a racist bone in my body,ā Biden said. āIāve been involved in civil rights my whole career.ā
Speaking on CNN, Booker responded: āI was raised to speak truth to power and that I shall never apologize for doing that. And Vice President Biden shouldnāt need this lesson.ā
The firestorm is quickly becoming one of the most intense disputes of the Democratic presidential primary, underscoring the hazards for Biden as he tries to turn his decades of Washington experience into an advantage. Instead, heās infuriating Democrats who say heās out of step with the diverse party of the 21st century and potentially undermining his argument that heās the most electable candidate in the race.
The controversy began at a New York fundraiser Tuesday when Biden pointed to long-dead segregationist senators James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia to argue that Washington functioned more smoothly a generation ago than under todayās ābrokenā hyperpartisanship.
āWe didnāt agree on much of anything,ā Biden said of the two men, who were prominent senators when Biden was elected in 1972. Biden described Talmadge as āone of the meanest guys I ever knewā and said Eastland called him āson,ā though not āboy,ā a reference to the racist way many whites addressed black men at the time.
Yet even in that Senate, Biden said, āAt least there was some civility. We got things done.ā
A pile on from Bidenās rivals quickly ensued. Booker said he was disappointed by Bidenās remarks.
āI have to tell Vice President Biden, as someone I respect, that he is wrong for using his relationships with Eastland and Talmadge as examples of how to bring our country together,ā said Booker, who is African American.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a fellow Democratic presidential candidate and a white man who is married to a black woman, tweeted: āItās 2019 & @JoeBiden is longing for the good old days of ācivilityā typified by James Eastland. Eastland thought my multiracial family should be illegal.ā
California Sen. Kamala Harris, a black presidential candidate, said Biden was ācoddlingā segregationists in a way that āsuggests to me that he doesnāt understand … the dark history of our countryā ā a characterization Bidenās campaign rejects.
Former Texas Rep. Beto OāRourke, another 2020 candidate, said, āFor the vice president to somehow say that what weāre seeing in this country today is a function of partisanship or a lack of bipartisanship completely ignores the legacy of slavery and the active suppression of African Americans and communities of color right now.ā
The tumult comes at a crucial point in the campaign. Biden is still recovering from controversy he sparked earlier this month when he angered many Democrats by saying he didnāt support federal taxpayer money supporting abortion. He later reversed his position.
Heās among the more than 20 candidates who will descend on South Carolina this weekend to make their case to black voters at a series of Democratic events.
Meanwhile, most Democratic White House hopefuls will again gather in Miami next week for the first presidential debate of the primary season. Biden will almost certainly come under fire there for his comments this week.
He sought to defuse the tension on Wednesday by saying he was trying to argue that leaders sometimes have to work with people they disagree with to achieve goals, such as renewing the Voting Rights Act.
āThe point Iām making is you donāt have to agree. You donāt have to like the people in terms of their views,ā he said Wednesday. āBut you just simply make the case and you beat them without changing the system.ā
He has received support from some black leaders. Cedric Richmond, Bidenās campaign co-chairman and former Congressional Black Caucus chairman, said Bidenās opponents deliberately ignored the full context of his argument for a more functional government.
āMaybe thereās a better way to say it, but we have to work with people, and thatās a fact,ā Richmond said, noting he dealt recently with President Donald Trump to pass a long-sought criminal justice overhaul. āI question (Trumpās) racial sensitivity, a whole bunch of things about his character … but we worked together.ā
Likewise, Richmond said, Biden mentioned Jim Crow-era senators to emphasize the depths of disagreements elected officials sometimes navigate. āIf he gets elected president, we donāt have 60 votes in the Senateā to overcome filibusters, Richmond noted. āHe could be less genuine and say, āWeāre just going to do all these things.ā But we already have a president like that. (Biden) knows we have to build consensus.ā
Biden also drew a qualified defense from Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only black senator from his party. Scott said that Biden āshould have used a different group of senatorsā to make his point but that his remarks āhave nothing to do with his position on raceā issues. Scott said the reaction reflects an intense environment for Democrats in which the desire to defeat Trump means āanything the front-runner says that is off by a little bitā will be magnified.
This was the week that the battle for the nomination got real.
Part 2– Story 4: President Trump Pushes All The Right Buttons in 2020 Stump Speech in Orlando, Florida –Send Them Home — Lock Them Up — Four More Years — Videos
TRUMP 2020: President Trump Re-Election Campaign Rally – FULL SPEECH
What To Take Away From President Trump’s Re-Election Rally In Florida
FOX and Friends *6/19/19 | URGENT!TRUMP BREAKING News June 19, 2019
Orlando Fl Trump Rally CROWD FOOTAGE June 18th 2019
Trump slams Obamacare at 2020 reelection rally
President Trump’s 2020 campaign kicks off with a rally in Orlando, Florida
Trump mocks Hillary at explosive re-election campaign rally
Trump campaign kickoff rally was “like we were throwing back the clock to four years ago”
WATCH: Vice President Mike Pence Speaks at President Trump’s Reelection Rally
WATCH: Donald Trump Jr. Delivers EXPLOSIVE Speech at Reelection Rally
LIVE š“ President Trump Rally in Orlando, Florida – June 18, 2019 – TRUMP 2020 RE-ELECTION RALLY
News Now Stream 2 6/18/19 (FNN)
Rep. Matt Gaetz: Trump’s Campaign Is An Inclusive Movement
FULL RALLY: President Trump Holds MASSIVE Rally in Orlando, FL
Trump supporters call speech ‘fantastic’
Anti-Trump Protesters Gather Outside Trump’s 2020 Kickoff Rally in Orlando
The Ingraham Angle 6/18/19 | Laura Ingraham Fox News June 18, 2019
Sean Hannity 6/18/19 | Fox News Today June 18 2019
Tucker Carlson Tonight 6/18/19 | Fox News Today June 18 2019
With Florida rally, Trump aims for a 2020 campaign ‘reset’
Trump to launch 2020 re-election bid in Florida
Orlando preps for huge crowds for Trump rally
Crowds grow for Trump rally in Orlando
People are lining up for President Trump’s event on Tuesday
THE PRESIDENT IS BACK: President Trump Returns From MASSIVE Orlando Rally
The Memo: Can Trump run as an outsider?
BY NIALL STANAGE –Ā 06/20/19 06:00 AM EDT
President TrumpĀ is running for reelection as an outsider candidate. But itās a knotty challenge for someone who holds the worldās most powerful office.
Trumpās speech in Orlando, Fla., on Tuesday, which officially launched his 2020 bid, was rife with rhetoric portraying himself ā and by extension his supporters ā as victims of nefarious elites.
The president said that he and his allies were besieged by a āpermanent political classā and āan unholy alliance of lobbyists and donors and special interests.ā
āOur patriotic movement has been under assault from the very first day,ā Trump insisted at one point. Moments before, he told the crowd, āthe swamp is fighting back so viciously and violently.ā
Itās the kind of language that makes Democrats roll their eyes. Trump, they note, is a billionaire property developer, born into wealth, who won the presidency on his first attempt ā yet he portrays himself as the tribune of āthe forgotten men and women of our countryā whom he invoked in his January 2017 inaugural address.
But Trumpās unconventionality might, in itself, help him retain some kind of outsider cachet in a way that is unusual for an incumbent president.
āFor any other president, yes, it is a challenge,ā said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist who worked for Sen.Ā Marco RubioĀ (R-Fla.) in the 2016 presidential primaries.
āBut Trump is unlike any other president. Trump has been at war with the establishment since the moment he set foot in the White House,ā he said.
It is certainly true that Trump was viewed with suspicion by the Republican Party from the time he began his presidential run ā and that his language and attitudes are viewed with distaste by much of the Beltway political class.
But dislike for Trumpās personal antics is hardly confined to D.C. elites.
A Pew Research Center poll in March showed pluralities of the public believing that he was not ātrustworthy,ā āeven-temperedā or āwell-informed.ā
For all Trumpās supposed concern with less affluent Americans, 56 percent of the respondents in the Pew poll said they did not believe he cared about āpeople like me,ā whereas just 40 percent said he did care.
The GOP has largely made peace with him, with former rivals including Sens.Ā Lindsey GrahamĀ (S.C.) andĀ Rand PaulĀ (Ky.) becoming enthusiastic supporters, congressional dissenters such as former Rep.Ā Mark Sanford(R-S.C.) having been defeated in primaries and Trump now in firm control of the party apparatus.
Skeptics also point to both policies and personnel ā from the steep cut in the corporate tax rate in 2017 to the 16-month run of the ethically challengedĀ Scott PruittĀ as head of the Environmental Protection Agency ā as evidence that the swamp has remained undrained under Trump.
But Trump allies are insistent that the presidentās feel for the cultural mores of blue-collar America remains a potent and underrated political weapon.
āHe is certainly an outsider to the political establishment. They still donāt get him and he is not coming around to their way of thinking,ā said Barry Bennett, who worked as a senior adviser to Trumpās 2016 campaign. āHe may live inside the gates but he does not live inside the establishment. ā¦ I donāt know anyone who believes he has become some kind of Georgetown socialite.ā
Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump friend, insisted, āI have never ever met anyone, any Trump supporter, who believes anything else besides the fact that heās an outsider.ā
There is clearly a political dividend to be gained if Trump can hold onto his outsider image.
In the recent past, voters in presidential elections have often chosen the candidate seen as less steeped in the ways of Washington.
Former President Obama won election twice as a change agent, initially winning the White House as the first black president and then securing a second term over GOP nomineeĀ Mitt Romney, the personification of a genteel Republican establishment.
Former President George W. Bush had only a tenuous claim to outsider status, given he was the son of a president ā yet his campaign was able to paint then-Sen.Ā John KerryĀ (D-Mass.) as a creature of Washington in the 2004 presidential election.
Before that, former President Clinton used his down-home Arkansas image as a weapon against an incumbent president, Bushās father, George H.W Bush, and then won a second term over another GOP establishment favorite, then-Sen. Bob Dole (Kan.).
Independent observers acknowledge that Trumpās style, divisive though it is, could help him be seen as much more of a disruptor even than these recent predecessors.
āItās almost impossible for an incumbent to run as an outsider, but Trump has held onto that credential,ā said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications. āHe is parlaying that into how he sees himself ā running against the Democrats, the media, the elites.ā
Republicans, meanwhile, argue that Trumpās outsider image could be especially useful if Democrats pick former Vice PresidentĀ Joe BidenĀ as their nominee.
Biden, in their telling, is much easier to brand as a creature of Washington given his decades in the Senate. There will be a different challenge if Democrats instead choose one of Bidenās rivals who is a fresher face on the national political scene, such as Sen.Ā Elizabeth WarrenĀ (D-Mass.) or SenĀ Kamala HarrisĀ (D-Calif.); or more radical, such as Sen.Ā Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.).
Trump, billionaire Manhattanite though he may be, has long used the idea that he is sneered at by a snobbish elite to his own advantage.
On Tuesday, he told his supporters that Democrats āwant to destroy you.ā
It was a stark and visceral remark even by Trumpās standards.
But, after his 2016 victory, even his critics canāt be so sure it wonāt work.
Trump canāt win by relitigating 2016 and playing only to his base.
By The Editorial Board June 19, 2019 7:18 pm ET
President Donald Trump looks on during a rally at the Amway Center in Orlando, Florida to officially launch his 2020 campaign on June 18.PHOTO:Ā MANDEL NGAN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
President Trump announced his campaign for a second term at a rally in Orlando on Tuesday evening that recounted his first-term record and 2016 victory before thousands of rapturous supporters. The only thing missing was an agenda for 2020.
The most striking fact of his speech was how backward looking it was. Every incumbent needs to remind voters of his record, Mr. Trump more than most because the media are so hostile.
Donald Trump Launches Campaign
The President is also right that his opponents have refused to recognize the legitimacy of his election. House Democrats may still try to impeach him for not obstructing an investigation into what wasnāt a conspiracy with Russia. His sense of āgrievance,ā to quote the media meme about his speech, on that point is entirely justified.
Yet Mr. Trump is asking for fourĀ moreĀ years, and his preoccupation with vindicating 2016 wonāt resonate much beyond his core supporters. Most voters have moved on from 2016, which is why a majority opposes impeachment in every poll. They donāt much care about Mr. Trumpās greatest hits about Hillary Clinton, who alas for the President will not be on the ballot in 2020. They want to know why they should take a risk on Mr. Trump and his volatile character for another term.
This is all the more important given the way his first term has evolved on policy. One paradox is that his main policy successes have come from pursuing a conventional conservative agenda. The failures have been on the issues like trade and immigration that are the most identified with Trumpian disruption.
The economyās renewed growth spurt came from tax reform, deregulation, liberating energy production and ending the anti-business harassment of the Obama years. His remaking of the judiciary and rebuilding of the military unite Republicans of all stripes. Criminal justice reform was the result of years of spade work on the right and left.
Mr. Trump deserves credit for pursuing all of this despite often ferocious opposition that might have intimidated a different GOP President. Thatās true in particular of his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, where U.S. Democratic and media opinion is aligned with Europeās elites.
On immigration, however, the President missed a chance to strike a deal trading more border security (including his wall) for legalizing Dreamers. He must now confront the asylum crisis at the border with no help from Democrats. On trade, Mr. Trump has disrupted global rules but has put nothing new and stable in their place. Asking voters to believe heāll do better on these issues in a second term isnāt likely to turn many swing voters his way.
The other paradox of the Trump Presidency is his low approval rating despite a stronger economy. The polls show his approval rating on the economy is above 50% but his overall approval is 44.3% in the Real Clear Politics average. The difference is best explained by Mr. Trumpās polarizing behavior, which has alienated in particular college-educated voters and Republican women. In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, Mr. Trump is underwater with white college-educated women by a remarkable 20 percentage points.
Mr. Trump may figure he can persuade some of those skeptics by making the Democratic nominee even more unpopular than he is. If the Democrats oblige by nominating Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, that might be possible. But that is making a bet on the other partyās mistake, and a re-election campaign is typically a referendum on the incumbent.
Which is all the more reason to offer voters something more for a second term. He could put Democrats on the spot for high housing prices and homelessness by talking about restrictive zoning for elites and high property taxes. He could offer to reform higher education by making schools responsible for some of the debt of students who canāt repay loans, or invigorate vocational education to help young people who canāt go to college.
He could package health-care proposals to expand choice, reduce prices and make insurance portable; his administration has already proposed some of them. He could advance his theme of ādraining the swampā by offering ideas to reform the civil service. Weād include entitlement reform, but then Mr. Trump has shown no interest and we donāt believe in political miracles.
This is far from an exhaustive list, and Mr. Trump wonāt win as a policy wonk in any case. But Mr. Trump also wonāt win by relitigating the 2016 election or playing only to his political base. He needs more than he offered voters on Tuesday night.
Opinion: Countering Trump With Reliability, Not Bold Agenda
A Fox News poll has found that Democrats prefer a “steady” candidate to a “big agenda” candidate. But going up against the scale of Donald Trump will be tough, so how do frontrunners Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren compare? Image: Getty
‘This election is about you. Your family, your future & the fate of YOUR country’: Trump lays it on the line at 20,000-strong Orlando rally as he kicks off 2020 re-election campaign with his entire family and obligatory digs at ‘Crooked Hillary’
The presidentĀ spent the first half-hour of a Tuesday night rally hammering his old foe Hillary ClintonĀ
Trump said his team wondered if it should hold the rally in a venue which can hold 20,000 people
āNot only did we fill it up, but we had 120,000 requests… Congratulations!ā the president said to cheers
The president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, invited the criticism when she wound up an arena of supporters
Husband Eric, who spoke after her, had a crowd of more than 20,000 screaming, ‘CNN Sucks!’Ā
‘He loves this country and we, as a family, love this country. We’re going to fight like hell,’ Eric saidĀ
Ā Donald Trump Jr. mocked Joe Biden before the rowdy crowd that waited in the heat and rain for hours
‘He gets up on the stump. It’s so stupid,’ he said, claiming the ex-VP has four-person crowdsĀ
PUBLISHED:Ā 18:49 EDT, 18 June 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 11:47 EDT, 19 June 2019
President Trump spent a Tuesday night rally he’d advertised as a 2020 kickoff hammering his old foe Hillary Clinton for acid washing her emails and failing to deliver on her pledge to beat him, while Democrats vying for the party’s nomination now escaped his wrath.
Noting that heās under constant media scrutiny, Trump said that heād be sent to the slammer if he ordered aides to destroy potential evidence.
āBut, can you imagine if I got a subpoena, think of this, if I got a subpoena for emails, if I deleted one email like a love note to Melania, it’s the electric chair for Trump,ā he claimed in a campaign speech in Orlando.
Trump said subpoenas heās receiving are not about Democratic claims that his campaign may have colluded with Russia.
āThe Democrats donāt care about Russia, they only care about their own political power. They went after my family, my business, my finances, my employees, almost everyone that Iāve ever known or worked with,’ he argued. ‘But they are really going after you. Thatās what itās all about. Itās not about us, itās about you. They tried to erase your vote, erase your legacy of the greatest campaign and the greatest election probably in the history of our country.’
U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive on stage to formally kick off his re-election bid with a campaign rally in Orlando. He kicked off first official 2020 rally by claiming 120,000 people submitted requests to attend
First lady Melania Trump speaks as Trump looks on. Trump’s first official campaign rally of 2020 opened much the way his 2016 candidacy ended – with his audience chanting ‘Lock her Up!’ in a slam on former Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton
Trump’s campaign turned the area outside the arena that can seat 20,000 people into a festival-like atmosphere with music and food trucks to help supporters pass the time
Michael Boulos, Tiffany Trump, Lara Trump, Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Donald Trump Jr. arrive at a rally for US President Donald Trump
FLOTUS Melania introduces her husband at Trump 2020 rally
The president said, āThey wanted to deny you the future you demanded and the future that America deserved and that now America is getting. Our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice and rage. They want to destroy you, and they want to destroy our country as we know it. Not acceptable, itās not going to happen. Not gonna happen.ā
Trump claimed that Democrats as a party would use the āpower of the law to punish their opponentsā if they’re handed the reigns to the country.
āImagine if we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress in 2020. They would shut down your free speech, use the power of the law to punish their opponents ā which theyāre trying to do now anyway ā theyāll always be trying to shield themselves,ā he claimed. ‘They will strip Americans of their Constitutional rights while flooding the country with illegal immigrants in the hopes it will expand their political base and theyāll get votes someplace down the future. Thatās what itās about.ā
Broad attacks on the Democratic Party and ‘radical socialism’ were the most stringent assaults that Trump would levy all night.
He said, ‘More than 120 Democrats in Congress have also signed up to support “Crazy Bernie Sanders” socialist government takeover of health care.
‘He seems not to be doing too well lately,’ the president said as an aside. ‘They want to end Medicare as we know it and terminate the private health insurance of 180 million Americans who love their health insurance. America will never be a socialist country.’
It was his only mention at the rally of one of his most formidable opponents. Former Democratic President Joe Biden was also a footnote in the speech, earning two mentions, as a part of the ‘Obama-Biden’ duo that Trump said ruined American foreign policy and drove down the nation’s economy.
‘Remember the statement from the previous administration? Would need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing? Well, tell “Sleepy Joe” that we found the magic wand. That’s a sleepy guy,’ the president added.
Trump outlined his vision tweeting: ‘Don’t ever forget – this election is about YOU. It is about YOUR family, YOUR future, & the fate of YOUR COUNTRY. We begin our campaign with the best record, the best results, the best agenda, & the only positive VISION for our Country’s future! #Trump2020’
The Trumps said their family has been under attack since the family patriarch declared his candidacy for president in 2015. Jared Kushner, left, Ivanka Trump arrive for the official launch of the Trump 2020 campaign
Donald Trump Jr. channeled his attacks to his fatherās current opponents, mocking leading Democratic candidate Joe Biden before the rowdy crowd that waited in the heat and rain for hours, and days in some cases, to see the sitting president. Kimberly Guilfoyle, left, and Donald Trump Jr. pictured
Senior adviser Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle, watch as President Donald Trump speaks at his re-election kickoff rally at the Amway Center
Trump rails against Democrats, Mueller and ‘fake news’ at 2020 rally
Trump’s first official campaign rally of 2020 opened much the way his 2016 candidacy ended – with his audience chanting ‘Lock her Up!’ in a slam on former Democratic opponent Clinton.
The president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, invited the criticism first. She wound up an arena of supporters with a claim that the media was saying Clinton was going to be the 45th President of the United States days before the election. ‘They have always been wrong,’ she declared.
Attacks on the media as ‘fake news’ and ‘dishonest’ from Lara and her husband Eric, who spoke after her, had a crowd of more than 20,000 screaming ‘CNN Sucks!ā minutes later.
The Trumps said their family has been under attack from one group or another since the family patriarch declared his candidacy for president in 2015.
āHe loves this country and we, as a family, love this country. And guys we are going to fight like hell ā our family is going to fight like hell for this country. We will never ever stop fighting, and we will never ever, ever stop winning,ā the presidentās son said. āAnd guys, we love you very much. Weāre all going to be spending a lot of time in Florida. Weāre going to be spending a lot of time in Florida. So weāre going to see you.ā
Donald Trump Jr. channeled his attacks to his fatherās current opponents, mocking Biden before the rowdy crowd that waited in the heat and rain for hours, and days in some cases, to see the sitting president.
āI donāt know about you, but I look around this room and when Joe Bidenās putting about seven people in an audience, Iām saying, āI think they may be a little wrong with the polling.ā But what they hell do I know?ā he said.
National polls show Biden beating Trump in a general election. A Quinnipiac University survey that came out Tuesday found that the former vice president would beat Trump by nine points, 50 ā 41, the newly-released poll showed.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would win by a similar margin, 48 ā 42, while other top Democrats would perform in the poll’s margin of error.
Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told DailyMail.com inside the rally that Quinnipiac is ‘c**p’ in response to the latest poll showing bad news in a critical swing state for the controversial president.
Trump had already warned the public that this official launch of 2020 campaign would be ‘wild,’ after supporters camped out in tents for more than 30 hours to save their places at the front of a massive line that would ensure them floor seats
US First Lady Melania Trump greets US Vice President Mike Pence. Trump set the tone for the monster rally in a morning tweet that bashed the media and compared the scene outside the Amway Center to a rock tour
Lara Trump takes to the stage before her father-in-law United States President Donald Trump arrives on stage to announce his candidacy for a second presidential term at the Amway Center
Donald Trump Jr. throws hats to supporters at the rally. He mocked Joe Biden before the rowdy crowd that waited for hours
Trump attacks Democrats at his Orlando rally
Don Jr. brushed off the threat from Biden, 76, as he campaigned for his father, 73, on Tuesday in Orlando. He called Biden and his competitors a āclown showā and gave the Democrat a new nickname. āSloppy Joe,ā he called him, as he hit Biden for flip-flopping.
‘He gets up on the stump. It’s so stupid,’ he said. āTo his group of about four people in the audience, āGovernment has failed you.ā Usually, as heās groping someone. It aināt pretty, but thereās something off with that guy.ā
The president’s son said he agrees that government is broken and it’s a problem. ‘The problem is Joe, you’ve been in government for almost 50 years. If government failed you, maybe youāre the problem Joe Biden,ā he said. āItās not rocket science.ā
Trump warned the public that the campaign rally would be ‘wild,’ and Don Jr. helped him deliver on the pledge.
He mocked Biden’s pledge to cure cancer, asking, ‘Why the hell didn’t you do that over the last 50 years, Joe?’
Don Jr. blamed the media for giving Biden a pass. āWhy did not one of them say, āWell, Joe, how exactly are you going to do that?ā And why didnāt you do that in the last eight years as vice president and the prior 40 years in government and the Senate?ā
His father later claimed that he’d cure cancer in remarks that followed. ‘We will push onward with new medical frontiers. We will come up with the cures to many, many problems, to many, many diseases, including cancer and others and weāre getting closer all the time,’ he said.
Attacks on Clinton and media were a common theme throughout the night, with Trump pausing and waiting for his supporters to cheer, āCNN SUCKS!ā and āLock her Up!ā as he talked about the former secretary of stateās acid-washed emails and her loss to him in the last election.
āIt was all an illegal attempt to overturn the results of our election, spy on our campaign, which is what they did,ā he complained.
Trump meets fans after stepping off Air Force One upon arrival at Miami International Airport in Miami
Vice President Mike Pence, escorted in by Karen Pence, speaks before Trump takes the stage on Tuesday evening
A man holds up a sign as the crowd waits for US President Donald Trump to arrive at a rally at the Amway Center in Orlando, Florida to officially launch his 2020 campaign
Melania’s spokesperson Stephanie Grisham speaks with White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway at the campaign rally
President Trump said as he opened the event that he could feel the āmagicā in Orlando ā a play on the name of the cityās professional basketball team.
He spoke to supporters in the same arena that the team plays in, which is a venue that can hold roughly 20,000 people.
āYou know, I said, āThis is a very big arena for a Tuesday night.ā I said, āYou know, if we have about three or four empty seats, the fake news will say ā headlines: he didnāt fill up the arena.ā So I said maybe we shouldnāt take the chance, maybe we shouldnāt go to Orlando, maybe we should go someplace else,ā Trump said in his opening remarks. āI said, āNo, I think weāll go to Orlando.ā And, not only did we fill it up, but we had 120,000 requests. That means you folks have come out very, very good.ā
Supporters camped out in tents for more than 30 hours to save their places at the front of a massive line that would ensure them floor seats at Tuesday evening’s show.
Saundra Kiczenski, a Michigan native who works in retail, waited from 7am on Monday. She said she’d been to rallies in support of the president in 15 states. She spent Monday night on the pavement in a sleeping bag.
‘I took the hotel pillow and slept on the ground,’ she told DailyMail.com on Tuesday afternoon as she waited to get in.
The Republican incumbent set the tone for the monster rally in Florida he’d be appearing at in the evening in a morning tweet that bashed the media and compared the scene outside the Amway Center to a rock tour.
‘The Fake News doesnāt report it, but Republican enthusiasm is at an all time high. Look what is going on in Orlando, Florida, right now! People have never seen anything like it (unless you play a guitar). Going to be wild – See you later!’ he tweeted on Tuesday morning.
A cover band with aging rockers who call themselves ‘The Guzzlers’ revved up the crowd under a beating sun at a ‘festival’ the campaign held in an outdoor parking lot, where vendors sold a captive and cramped group sodas, snow cones and Trump umbrellas.
Sweltering heat that topped 87 degrees soon turned to pouring rain, giving the umbrellas a dual purpose for supporters like Richard Snowden who chose to remain.
A resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, Snowden said he’d be ‘remiss’ to have skipped the kickoff. He told DailyMail.com from the comfort of a party-style tent his group had pitched that he’d attended 54 rallies since Trump announced his candidacy for office in 2015.
But even Snowden called himself a pragmatist and said of the president’s reelection odds, ‘I don’t think it’s going to be a cakewalk.’
‘The incumbency will help. He won’t catch them flat-footed this time,’ he observed, as he waited for the rally to begin. ‘And he won’t have the dislike of Hillary working in his favor,’ he said in remarks that proved to prescient.
The US President and First Lady Melania Trump are pictured stepping off Air Force One upon arrival at Orlando International Airport in Orlando, Florida Tuesday
Special advisor to the US president Jared Kushner and White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, left, and Michael Boulos and Tiffany Trump, right, wait for the arrival of US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump at Orlando International Airport on Tuesday
Donald Trump is putting an advisory on his Orlando rally, saying the official launch of 2020 campaign will be ‘wild,’ after supporters camped out in tents to save their places in line like they were waiting in line for a free concert with Rihanna
Supporters of President Donald Trump wait in line hours before the arena doors open for a campaign rally Tuesday
Patriotic colors: Trump supporters came in red white and blue for the campaign kick-off
Determined: The early start was an attempt by the fanatical Trump backers to be at the front of the crowd for the campaign kick-off
Trump, in 2020 campaign mode, calls Democrats āradicalā
By JILL COLVIN, JONATHAN LEMIRE and MICHAEL SCHNEIDERtoday
President Donald Trump jabbed at the press and poked the political establishment he ran against in 2016 as he kicked off his reelection campaign with a grievance-filled rally focused more on settling scores than laying out his agenda for a possible second term.
Addressing a crowd of thousands at Orlandoās Amway Center on Tuesday night, Trump complained he was āunder assault from the very first dayā of his presidency by a āfake news mediaā and an āillegal witch huntā that had tried to keep him and his supporters down.
He painted a disturbing picture of what life would look like if he loses in 2020, accusing his critics of āun-American conductā and saying Democrats āwant to destroy you and they want to destroy our country as we know it.ā
āA vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream,ā he said. Trump made only passing mention of any of the Democrats running to replace him even as he tossed out āradicalā and āunhingedā to describe the rival party.
Trump has long railed against the special counselās investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the ongoingĀ probes by House DemocratsĀ in the aftermath ofĀ Robert Muellerās reportĀ .
The apocalyptic language and finger-pointing made clear that Trumpās 2020 campaign will probably look a whole lot like his run three years ago. Even after two-and-a-half years in the Oval Office, Trump remains focused on energizing his base and offering himself as a political outsider running against Washington.
Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted Wednesday morning that Trump had raised $24.8 million in less than 24 hours for his reelection.
In his speech, Trump spent considerably more time focused on former Democratic rival Hillary Clinton than on his current 2020 challengers, even though she is not on the ballot.
Thousands of Trump supporters began gathering outside the arena on Monday.
āTrump has been the best president weāve ever had,ā said Ron Freitas, a retired Merchant Marine and registered Democrat from Orlando.
Hundreds of anti-Trump protesters clapped and took photos when a 20-foot (6-meter) blimp of a snarling Trump baby in a diaper was inflated. Some members of the far-right hate group Proud Boys were also spotted marching outside the rally.
Trump aides scheduled the kickoff near the four-year anniversary of the day when the former reality television star and New York tabloid fixture launched his longshot campaign for presidentĀ with a famous escalator rideĀ in front of a crowd that included paid actors.
Trump spoke fondly of his 2016 race, calling it āa defining moment in American history.ā He said that in the years since, he had upended Washington, staring down āa corrupt and broken political establishmentā and restoring a government āof, for and by the people.ā
He never has really stopped running. He filed for reelection on Jan. 20, 2017, the day of his inauguration, and held his first 2020 rally in February, 2017, in nearby Melbourne. He has continued holding his signature āMake America Great Againā rallies in the months since.
Trump asked the crowd whether he should stick with āMake America Great Againā or upgrade his slogan. His new one ā āKeep America Greatā ā was greeted with boisterous cheers.
Trump is hoping to replicate the dynamics that allowed him to take charge of the Republican Party and then the presidency as an insurgent intent on disrupting the status quo. In 2016, he successfully appealed to disaffected voters who felt left behind by economic dislocation and demographic shifts. He has no intention of abandoning that mantle, even if he is the face of the institutions he looks to disrupt.
That promise, which came with no details and sparked Democratic condemnation, seemed to offer a peek into a campaign that will largely be fought along the same lines as his first bid, with very few new policy proposals for a second term.
Early Democratic front-runner Joe Biden said Trumpās politics are āall about dividing usā in ways that are ādangerous ā truly, truly dangerous.ā
Another leading Democratic contender, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, said Trump had delivered āan hour-and-a-half speech of lies, distortions and total, absolute nonsense.ā
But those involved in the presidentās reelection effort believe his version of populism, combined with his mantra to āDrain the Swamp,ā still resonates, despite his administrationās ties with lobbyists and corporations andĀ the Trump familyās apparent efforts to profit off the presidency.Critics have pointed out his constant promotion for his golf courses, both at home and abroad, and note that this daughter, White House senior aide Ivanka Trump, made $4 million last year from her stake in the presidentās Washington hotel, which has become a favored destination for foreign nationals looking to curry favor with the administration.
Advisers believe that, in an age of extreme polarization, many Trump backers view their support for the president as part of their identity, one not easily shaken. They point to his seemingly unmovable support with his base supporters as evidence that he is still viewed the same way he was as a candidate: a political rebel.
Trump tried to make the case that he had made good on his 2016 promises, including cracking down on illegal immigration and boosting jobs.
Near the rallyās end, Trump ran through a list of promises for a second term, pledging a new immigration system, new trade deals, a health care overhaul and a cure for cancer and āmany diseases,ā including eradicating AIDS in America.
President Trump spent a Tuesday night rally he’d advertised as a 2020 kickoff hammering his old foe Hillary Clinton for acid washing her emails and failing to deliver on her pledge to beat him, while Democrats vying for the party’s nomination now escaped his wrath.
Noting that heās under constant media scrutiny, Trump said that heād be sent to the slammer if he ordered aides to destroy potential evidence.
āBut, can you imagine if I got a subpoena, think of this, if I got a subpoena for emails, if I deleted one email like a love note to Melania, it’s the electric chair for Trump,ā he claimed in a campaign speech in Orlando.
Trump said subpoenas heās receiving are not about Democratic claims that his campaign may have colluded with Russia.
A sunshine state of mind! Melania and Donald Trump gaze lovingly at one another as they leave the White House hand-in-hand and head to Florida for the president’s 2020 rally
Trump, 73, and Melania, 49, departed the White House together on Tuesday to fly to Florida
The President will be officially launching his 2020 campaign with a rally atĀ the Amway Center
The first lady wore a summery $2,290 white eyelet Andrew Gin dress with a pair of red and white polka-dot heels
She grinned at her husband as they walked hand-in-hand to Marine One
Melania is not expected to speak at the event, which will include an estimated 20,000 people
PUBLISHED:Ā 18:06 EDT, 18 June 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 20:48 EDT, 18 June 2019
Donald andĀ Melania TrumpĀ had a rare romantic public moment on Tuesday as the two left the White House for Orlando,Ā Florida.
The President and first lady walked hand-in-hand across the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One on their way to Trump’s 2020 campaign kickoff rally.
Cameras caught the couple sharing a warm smile as they held onto each other,Ā Trump, 73, dressed in a navy suit and red tie and his 49-year-old wife took advantage of the June heat in a $2,290 summery white eyelet dress from Andrew Gin, and red polka-dot heels.
All smiles: Donald and Melania Trump held hands and beamed at one another as they walked across the White House lawn to begin their trip to Orlando, Florida, on Tuesday
Ready to get away! The 49-year-old first lady couldn’t wipe the smile off her face as she and the president strolled across the South Lawn
+19
On their way: They appeared to be in good spirits as they set out for Orlando, Florida
+19
Hands on: At one point, Trump clasped one of Melania’s hands in both of his own
The couple isn’t typically much for PDA but shared an intimate smile as they walked passed photographers.
They held each other’s hands, with Trump stopping at one point in order to clasp Melania’s left hand in both of his own.
Melania beat the heat, which is hovering in the mid-to-high 80s in Washington, D.C. today, in a breezy but figure-flaunting white sleeveless dress, which featured a seasonally appropriate eyelet patter with floral cutouts on the top.
She accessorized with a pair of dark sunglasses and red and white pointy-toe pumps. while wearing her brown hair blown out around her shoulders.
The couple, who married in 2005, celebrated their 14th wedding anniversary in January, just one year less than he was married to his first wife Ivana.
The couple grinned as they boarded Marine One and then switched planes for Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.
+19
Hot out here: Melania wore a summery white eyelet dress for the occasion, as temperatures soared into the high 80s
+19
Protection: She shielded her eyes behind a pair of sunglasses
+19
High heels: On her feet were a pair of red polka dot pointy-toe pumps
+19
Ready to go: The well-coiffed first lady had her hair and nails done
They’re flying down not to Mar-a-Lago but Orlando, where Trump is kicking off his 2020 presidential campaign at theĀ Amway Center in front of an estimated 20,000 people.
Trump’s campaign is transforming the area outside the arena to have a festival-like atmosphere, with music and food trucks to help supporters pass the time.
The most coveted positions are not seats at all, but standing positions near the front of the stage. Backers of the president in that area are likely to get a handshake, a selfie or Trump’s autograph at the event that formally marks the beginning of his campaign for a second term.
All of Trump’s children and his wife Melania will be with him at the event, sources told DailyMail.com, as will the Mike Pence, the president’s running mate and the nation’s vice president.
The first lady does not plan to make formal remarks on Tuesday night, her office said, butĀ given the president’s tendency to call on people to speak, she could end up addressing the crowd.
Donald Trump, Jr., on the other hand is expected to give remarks before the rally.
+19
+19
Beat the heat: Melania kept breezy in the lightweight dress, which will likely also serve her well in the Florida heat
+19
Staying behind: The first lady does not plan to make formal remarks on Tuesday night, her office said
+19
Change of plan? The couple’s 13-year-old son Barron is also expected to be at the rally, but was not seen traveling with them
+19
Family affair: Trump’s adult children ā Ivanka, Don Jr., Eric, and Tiffany ā are also expected to be there
+19
Melania continued to smile at her husband as they switched planes at Joint Base Andrews
+19
See ya! Trump waved goodbye as they boarded the plane together
The president’s eldest son is a frequent presence at campaign events ā with and without his father ā and often serves as a warm-up act for the president’s supporters. He’s also campaigned and raised money for other Republican candidates since his father entered politics.
His girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality, is also scheduled to be at the rally. She serves as a senior adviser to the president’s reelection campaign.
Senior advisers and family members to the president Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are also expected to be at the rally.
It’s unclear if Lara Trump, wife of Eric Trump, will be in Orlando. She serves as a senior adviser to the president’s campaign, but is also pregnant with the couple’s second child. She made a state trip to the UK in early June.
It will be 13-year-old Barron Trump’s first appearance at a campaign rally since his father took office.
Trump’s youngest daughter Tiffany, who has been less involved than her older siblings in her father’s campaigns and administration, will also be there.
Orlando Trump supporters stakeout spots ahead of rally
+19
Waiting for him: The rally will mark the official launch of 2020 campaign
+19
Patience: Supporters waited in line hours before the arena doors opened on Tuesday
Hot elections: Temperatures soared as Trump supporters waited to be in the front lines for his rally
Wild: The Republican incumbent set the tone in a morning tweet that bashed the media and compared the scene outside the Amway Center to a rock tour
President Trump release his 2020 campaign ad for re-election
The Republican incumbent set the tone for the monster rally in Florida he’d be appearing at this evening in a morning tweet that bashed the media and compared the scene outside the Amway Center to a rock tour.
‘The Fake News doesnāt report it, but Republican enthusiasm is at an all time high. Look what is going on in Orlando, Florida, right now! People have never seen anything like it (unless you play a guitar). Going to be wild – See you later!’ he said.
Trump had apparently dropped a claim that ‘thousands’ turned up on Monday, with about 250 people camping overnight. But the numbers grew steadily as temperatures soared in Orlando Tuesday, reaching 87 degrees before an hour-long downpour that soaked a waiting crowd.
A new Quinnipiac poll showed Trump losing Florida to Democratic nemesis Joe Biden. The former vice president would beat Trump by nine points, 50 – 41 per cent, the newly-released survey showed.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would win by a similar margin, 48 – 42, while other top Democrats would perform in the poll’s margin of error
Fiscal 2018 budget deficit up 17% to $779 billionĀ Ā
The U.S. federal budget deficit rose in fiscal 2018 to the highest level in six years as spending climbed, the Trump administration said Monday.
The deficit jumped to $779 billion, $113 billion or 17 percent higher than the previous fiscal period, according to a statement from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. It was larger than any year since 2012, when it topped $1 trillion. The budget shortfall rose to 3.9 percent of U.S.Ā gross domestic product.
The deficit increased by $70 billion less than anticipated in a report published in July, according to the two officials.
Federal revenue rose only slightly, by $14 billion after Republicans chopped tax rates for corporations and most individuals. Outlays climbed by $127 billion, or 3.2 percent. A spike in defense spending, as well as increases for Medicaid, Social Security and disaster relief, contributed to the increase.
Trump: We don’t have to go as fast on interest ratesĀ Ā
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have pledged their commitment to fiscal discipline, despite the fact that they passed a tax law projected to dramatically expand budget deficits last year and then authorized a boost in spending. In a statement, Mulvaney claimed that “America’s booming economy will create increased government revenues,” a point the GOP has repeatedly argued in favor of its tax plan.
“But this fiscal picture is a blunt warning to Congress of the dire consequences of irresponsible and unnecessary spending,” he added. “Going forward, President Trump and this Administration will continue to work with Congress to make the difficult choices needed to bring fiscal restraint, which, when matched with increasing revenue, will reduce our deficit.”
Several independent analyses have estimated the GOP tax plan will cause budget deficits to grow dramatically over time, even after economic growth is taken into account.
The Trump administration has proposed dramatic cuts to spending in several government agencies to reduce deficits. Even many Republicans have rejected the severity of proposed budget cuts.
The Treasury noted that receipts related to “excise, customs and other” jumped to $35 billion in September 2018, a 35 percent increase over the prior-year period. It is unclear how much of that revenue relates to Trump’s tariffs on imports from major trading partners.
Story 2: President Trump Talked With King of Saudi Arabia — Denies Any Knowledge of Jamal Khashoggi Disappearance and Death — Trump Suggests Rogue Killers — Who Knows? — The Shadow Knows — Videos —
The Shadow Knows
Jamal Khashoggi: Trump suggests ‘rogue killers’ to blame – BBC News
Former CIA acting director on possible punishment in Saudi missing journalist case
Trump administration takes closer look at case of Saudi Arabian journalist
Jamal Khashoggi, Mohammed bin Salman and the media | The Listening Post (Lead)
From Saudi royal court to exile: Why MBS wants to silence Jamal Khashoggi
Jamal Khashoggi is a friend of mine, so what I am about to write lacks objectivity.
In the many conversations we have had together, and for a long time after he fell out with the new regime in Riyadh under Crown PrinceĀ Mohammed bin Salman, Khashoggi actively eschewed the label “Saudi dissident”. He regarded himself as a loyalist, a son of the establishment, a journalist and foreign policy veteran who not so long ago was inside the benighted circle of the royal court. On occasions, he travelled with them.
Undying enmity
I can cite many examples of Khashoggi parting company with Western liberal critics of the kingdom. HeĀ supportedĀ – initially, at least – the Saudi-led war on Yemen. In common with many Sunni Arab analysts, he thought that Iran had overextended its reach into the Sunni Arab world and that it was time for Saudi Arabia to push back.
He defended capital punishment. HeĀ supportedĀ a crackdown on corruption – if he could be convinced that it was genuine. He supported, too, attempts to diversify and privatise an oil-dependent economy.
But Khashoggi adhered to one principle that the small circle around Mohammed bin Salman could not stomach, a quality that earned him their undying enmity. Khashoggi was honest. He could not be bought. He spoke his mind and was clear about what he was saying.
Khashoggiās criticism of his country was nuanced and for that reason alone I would consider him a real reformer and true democrat
He thought that there was only one path on which the kingdom should be headed in the 21st Century – that is of a slowly opening democracy headed by a gradually retreating constitutional monarchy.
He feared the crown prince would eventually bankrupt the country as a result of his vanity projects to raise new gleaming cities in the sand – cities that would remain empty. He recognised that MBSĀ was popular with the youth, but calculated that popularity would last up to the point where they had to open their wallets. The Saudi journalist paid heed toĀ reports of capital flight.
The reckless crown prince
Khashoggi’s criticism of his own country was nuanced and for that reason alone I would consider him a real reformer and true democrat. That he should – by now – have beenĀ detained for over 24 hours in the Saudi consulate in IstanbulĀ speaks volumes about the character and intentions of those running the show in Riyadh.
Missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s Turkish fiancee Hatice (L) and her friends wait in front of the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, on 3 October 2018 (AFP)
It dispels the well-funded PR myth that has ensnared journalists likeĀ Thomas Friedman of the New York TimesĀ and Jamal’s colleague on the Washington Post, David Ignatius, who have praised Mohammed bin Salman as a reformer. IgnatiusĀ wroteĀ that the Saudi crown prince was giving his country “shock therapy”. I did not think his paper supported the practise of lobotomy.
Mohammed bin Salman is shocking all right, but he is no therapist. He is vindictive. He bears grudges. He is supremely wilful. He has absolutely no respect for another country’s sovereignty, territory, courts or media. He is reckless. That he should have staged this stunt in Istanbul, on Turkish soil, is a measure of how reckless the Saudi crown prince and the narrow circle around him are.
That Mohammed bin Salman should have staged this stunt in Istanbul, on Turkish soil, is a measure of how reckless the Saudi crown prince and the narrow circle around him are
Relations between Saudi Arabia and Turkey have steadily deteriorated since theĀ coup attemptĀ against the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan two years ago.Ā It was clear which side the Saudi state-run media was on during the night of the coup. They ran wall-to-wall coverage, with all commentators saying either that Erdogan was dead or that he had fled the country.
That Erdogan had survived that night was truly bad news for Riyadh.
It took 16 hours for the Saudi state news service to realise that the coup had not succeeded and issue a statement expressing “the kingdom’s welcome that things are returned to normal led by his Excellency President Tayyip Erdogan and his elected government and in line with the constitutional legitimacy and the will of the Turkish people”.
A delicate time
Those memories are still raw, especially in the Turkish presidency. That Mohammed bin Salman should risk sending Saudi relations with Turkey to a new low by seizing a high-profile journalist on Erdogan’s home turf, is another indication of how unstable the next ruler of the kingdom is.
Istanbul is home to virtually the entire gamut of the Egyptian opposition, secular and Islamist (AFP)
As Riyadh knows only too well, it got very little for the $300m it paid, much of it in cash, to Iraqi politicians of different confessions who were contesting the recent election. It also knows that Turkey and Iran are in high-level talks – as is the Hashd el Shabi (also known as theĀ Popular Mobilisation Units)Ā and Sunni groups in Iraq – about a new security accommodation in areas that are traditionally Sunni.
This is the first time in many years that Iraq’s Shia factions are genuinely divided and that a political deal that does not run so fully along sectarian lines is achievable. This is a delicate time for Saudi-Turkish relations. It is not in Riyadh’s interest to upset the apple cart as publicly and clumsily as it appears to have done at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Turkish intelligence are convinced that Khashoggi remains inside the building and have surrounded it. Saudi officials have strongly denied any involvement in his disappearance and say that he left the consulate soon after arriving.
It is essential that Turkey secures Khashoggi’s safe release for reasons that go beyond the man himself, and a threadbare bilateral relationship.
Turkey: A safe haven
Apart from being home to millions of Syrian refugees, Turkey houses thousands of political exiles from all over the Arab world.
Istanbul is home to virtually the entire gamut of the Egyptian opposition, secular and Islamist. It is whereĀ British-born militantsĀ are kept in prison. There is a lot going on in Istanbul, and more than one Western government would prefer to keep it that way.
If Turkey allowed abductions by foreign governments to take place on its soil, its own internal security would rapidly deteriorate. It would also lose the substantial leverage it has in the Middle East by providing safe haven for a number of Sunni opposition groups.
How much pressure the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is willing to apply with his counterpart, the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, over Khashoggi (who has residency in the US and is a Washington Post columnist) is as yet unclear. The White House is no lover of the Washington Post or press freedom.
US President Donald TrumpĀ regularly insults and humiliatesĀ King Salman of Saudi Arabia to force him to pay even more for his own security than he already has done.
The regime in Saudi ArabiaĀ swallows these insults from Trump, while going to the opposite extreme with what it considers lesser nations like Canada, because it knows it has no other option.
Khashoggi wasĀ the first to warn SaudisĀ of the dangers of getting into bed with Trump. In fact, this was the reason he fell out with the Saudi regime in the first place, and this was long before the Arab Islamic American summit held in Riyadh last May and the announcement ofĀ lucrative arms deals. It is indeed too late for Riyadh to heed the journalist’s words, and so they have gone to desperate lengths to silence him.
For more than one reason, they should not be allowed to succeed.
–Ā David HearstĀ is editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He was chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, former Associate Foreign Editor, European Editor, Moscow Bureau Chief, European Correspondent, and Ireland Correspondent. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Photo: Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi speaks at an event hosted by Middle East Monitor in London on 29 September 2018 (Reuters)
As someone who spent three decades working closely with intelligence services in the Arab world and the West, the Saudi dissident andĀ Washington PostĀ columnist Jamal Khashoggi knew he was taking a huge risk in entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last week to try to obtain a document certifying he had divorced his ex-wife.
A one-time regime insider turned critic of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ā the de facto head of the Saudi kingdom which tolerates no criticism whatsoever ā Khashoggi had been living in Washington for the previous year in self-imposed exile amid a crackdown on independent voices in his homeland.
He had become the darling of western commentators on the Middle East. With almost two million Twitter followers, he was the most famous political pundit in the Arab world and a regular guest on the major TV news networks in Britain and the United States. Would the Saudis dare to cause him harm? It turns out that the answer to that question was āYou betcha.ā
Their not-so-secret mission? To torture, then execute, Khashoggi, and videotape the ghastly act for whoever had given the order for his merciless dispatch. Khashoggiās body, Turkish officials say, was dismembered and packed into boxes before being whisked away in a black van with darkened windows. The assassins fled the country.
There are also reports in the American media that all surveillance footage was removed from the consulate building, and that all local Turkish employees there were suddenly given the day off. According to theĀ New York Times, among the assassination team was the kingdomās top forensic expert, who brought a bone saw to dismember Khashoggiās body. None of this has yet been independently verified, but a very dark narrative is emerging.
In many respects, bin Salmanās regime has been revolutionary: he has let women drive, sided with Israel against Iran and curtailed the religious police. When Boris Johnson was foreign secretary, he said that bin Salman was the best thing to happen to the region in at least a decade, that the style of government of this 33-year-old prince was utterly different. But the cruelty and the bloodletting have not stopped. Saudi Arabia still carries out many public beheadings and other draconian corporal punishments. It continues to wage a war in Yemen which has killed at least 10,000 civilians.
Princes and businessmen caught up in a corruption crackdown are reported to have been tortured; Shia demonstrators have been mowed down in the streets and had their villages reduced to rubble; social media activists have been sentenced to thousands of lashes; families of overseas-based activists have been arbitrarily arrested. In an attempt to justify this, bin Salman said this week he was ātrying to get rid of extremism and terrorism without civil war, without stopping the country from growing, with continuous progress in all elements,ā adding: āSo if there is a small price in that area, itās better than paying a big debt to do that move.ā
The fate of Khashoggi has at least provoked global outrage, but itās for all the wrong reasons. We are told he was a liberal, Saudi progressive voice fighting for freedom and democracy, and a martyr who paid the ultimate price for telling the truth to power. This is not just wrong, but distracts us from understanding what the incident tells us about the internal power dynamics of a kingdom going through an unprecedented period of upheaval. It is also the story of how one man got entangled in a Saudi ruling family that operates like the Mafia. Once you join, itās for life, and if you try to leave, you become disposable.
In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for western-style pluralistic democracy. In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence. He was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in theĀ Washington Post. He championed the āmoderateā Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favour of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East. His recurring plea to binĀ Salman in his columns was to embrace not western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.
He had been a journalist in the 1980s and 1990s, but then became more of a player than a spectator. Before working with a succession of Saudi princes, he edited Saudi newspapers. The exclusive remit a Saudi governmentāappointed newspaper editor has is to ensure nothing remotely resembling honest journalism makes it into the pages. Khashoggi put the money in the bank ā making a handsome living was always his top priority. Actions, anyway, speak louder than words.
Khashoggi had this undeserved status in the West because of the publicity surrounding his sacking as editor of the Saudi dailyĀ Al WatanĀ back in 2003. (I broke the news of his removal for Reuters. Iād worked alongside Khashoggi at the Saudi dailyĀ Arab NewsĀ during the preceding years.) He was dismissed because he allowed a columnist to criticise an Islamist thinker considered to be the founding father of Wahhabism. Thus, overnight, Khashoggi became known as a liberal progressive.
The Muslim Brotherhood, though, has always been at odds with the Wahhabi movement. Khashoggi and his fellow travellers believe in imposing Islamic rule by engaging in the democratic process. The Wahhabis loathe democracy as a western invention. Instead, they choose to live life as it supposedly existed during the time of the Muslim prophet. In the final analysis, though, they are different means to achieving the same goal: Islamist theocracy. This matters because, although bin Salman has rejected Wahhabism ā to the delight of the West ā he continues to view the Muslim Brotherhood as the main threat most likely to derail his vision for a new Saudi Arabia. Most of the Islamic clerics in Saudi Arabia who have been imprisoned over the past two years ā Khashoggiās friends ā have historic ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Khashoggi had therefore emerged as a de facto leader of the Saudi branch. Due to his profile and influence, he was the biggest political threat to bin Salmanās rule outside of the royal family.
Worse, from the royalsā point of view, was that Khashoggi had dirt on Saudi links to al Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks. He had befriended Osama bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan and Sudan while championing his jihad against the Soviets in dispatches. At that same time, he was employed by the Saudi intelligence services to try to persuade bin Laden to make peace with the Saudi royal family. The result? Khashoggi was the only non-royal Saudi who had the beef on the royalsā intimate dealing with al Qaeda in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks. That would have been crucial if he had escalated his campaign to undermine the crown prince.
Like theĀ SaudiĀ royals, Khashoggi dissociated himself from bin Laden after 9/11 (which Khashoggi and I watched unfold together in theĀ Arab NewsĀ office in Jeddah). But he then teamed up as an adviser to the Saudi ambassador to London and then Washington, Prince Turki Al Faisal. The latter had been Saudi intelligence chief from 1977 until just ten days before the 9/11 attacks, when he inexplicably resigned. Once again, by working alongside Prince Turki during the latterās ambassadorial stints, as he had while reporting on bin Laden, Khashoggi mixed with British, US and Saudi intelligence officials. In short, he was uniquely able to acquire invaluable inside information.
The Saudis, too, may have worried that Khashoggi had become a US asset. In Washington in 2005, a senior Pentagon official told me of a ridiculous plan they had to take āthe Saudi out of Arabiaā (as was the rage post-9/11). It involved establishing a council of selected Saudi figures in Mecca to govern the country under US auspices after the US took control of the oil. He named three Saudis the Pentagon team were in regular contact with regarding the project. One of them was Khashoggi. A fantasy, certainly, but it shows how highly he was regarded by those imagining a different Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps it was for this and other reasons ā and working according to the dictum of keeping your enemies closer ā that a few weeks ago, according to a friend of Khashoggi, bin Salman had made a traditional tribal offer of reconciliation ā offering him a place as an adviser if he returned to the kingdom. Khashoggi had declined because of āmoral and religiousā principles. And that may have been the fatal snub, not least because Khashoggi had earlier this year established a new political party in the US called Democracy for the Arab World Now, which would support Islamist gains in democratic elections throughout the region. Bin Salmanās nightmare of a Khashoggi-led Islamist political opposition was about to become a reality.
The West has been fawning over bin Salman. But how now to overlook what seems to be a brazen Mafia-style murder? āI donāt like hearing about it,ā Donald Trump said. āNobody knows anything about it, but thereās some pretty bad stories going around. I do not like it.ā Well, there are plenty more stories where that came from, stories about a ruthless prince whose opponents have a habit of disappearing. The fate of Khashoggi is the latest sign of whatās really happening inside Saudi Arabia. For how much longer will our leaders look the other way?
This article was originally published inĀ The SpectatorĀ magazine.
Global media has been widely reporting on the alleged disappearance of Saudi national and Washington Post columnist JamalĀ Khashoggi, oftenĀ describingĀ him in terms such as āa dissident-journalist critical of the oil-rich kingdom.ā As the BBC recentlyĀ reported:
Jamal Khashoggi, a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi government, walked into the countryās consulate in Istanbul last week to obtain some documents and has not been seen since.
Generally but not always overlooked in the media coverage areĀ Khashoggiās ties to theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood
1. What is theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood?
Most observers are familiar with the pan-Islamic organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Founded in 1928 by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan El-Banna, the Egyptian Brotherhood has been a wellspring of Islamism and political Islam since it(…)
“>Global Muslim Brotherhood. For example, British author and journalist John R. BradleyĀ reportsĀ that Khashoggi joined theĀ Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970ās:
October 11, 2018 Ā In truth, Khashoggi never had much time for western-style pluralistic democracy. In the 1970s he joined the Muslim Brotherhood, which exists to rid the Islamic world of western influence. He was a political Islamist until the end, recently praising the Muslim Brotherhood in the Washington Post. He championed the āmoderateā Islamist opposition in Syria, whose crimes against humanity are a matter of record. Khashoggi frequently sugarcoated his Islamist beliefs with constant references to freedom and democracy. But he never hid that he was in favour of a Muslim Brotherhood arc throughout the Middle East. His recurring plea to binĀ Salman in his columns was to embrace not western-style democracy, but the rise of political Islam which the Arab Spring had inadvertently given rise to. For Khashoggi, secularism was the enemy.
Washington Post writer David Ignatius, who says he knewĀ Khashoggi for 15 years, alsoĀ reportsĀ that Khashoggi joined theĀ Muslim Brotherhood at some unspecified time, likely while in the US for his education:
October 7, 2018 Ā Khashoggi was passionate for reform of an Arab Muslim world that he considered corrupt and dishonest. He grew up in Medina, the son of a Saudi who owned a small textile shop. He went to the United States for college, attending Indiana State University. He also embraced Islam, joining the Muslim Brotherhood and, in the late 1970s, befriending the young Osama bin Laden, whom he tried to turn against violence.
Interesting isĀ Khashoggiās attendance at Indiana State University confirmed in a local mediaĀ reportĀ which says he wasĀ an undergraduate student at Indiana State from 1977-1982, and was awarded a degree in business administration on May 7, 1983. According to aĀ reportĀ by the GMBDW author, at the same timeĀ Khashoggi was attending university in Indiana, the state was the hub of the newly developing complex of organizations that would become the USĀ Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the report notes a key meeting held in early 1977 described as follows:
As theĀ Muslim Student Association
No entry yet. You can still search for Muslim Student Association
“>Muslim Student AssociationĀ (MSA) reached its mid-teens it began preparing for an expanded role in the service of Islam. It called an historic meeting of a cross-section of Islamic workers, in Plainfield, Indiana, in early 1397/1977. This meeting set up a task force to recommend a new organizational structure to respond to the increasing challenges and responsibilities emerging in the growing North American Muslim communities. The task force concluded that the new environment would be best served by establishing a broader umbrella organization called āISNA.ā
ISNA, theĀ Islamic Society of North America,Ā emerged out of the early US Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure and documents discovered in the course of the the terrorism trial of theĀ Holy Land Foundation
No entry yet. You can still search for Holy Land Foundation
“>Holy Land Foundation
confirmed that the organization was part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA was named as a Holy Land unindicted co-conspirator as a result of what the US Justice Department called the organizationās āintimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, and the defendants in this case.āĀ Although not confirmed, it would seem more than possible that a Muslim student active in Indiana would have been interacting with the complex of US Brotherhood organizations rapidly developing at that time.Ā Khashoggi is also known to have close relations withĀ Saudi businessman Prince Al Waleed Bin Talal whoĀ appointedĀ him to run the ill-fated Al Arab television station in Bahrain in 2015. As frequentlyĀ reportedĀ by the GMBDW, Prince Talal is known to have madeĀ donationsĀ to both theĀ ISNA and to theĀ Council on American Islamic RelationsĀ (CAIR), also part of theĀ US Muslim Brotherhood.
Not all reporting characterizes Khashoggi as aĀ Muslim Brotherhood āmemberā although it should be remembered that membership is a nebulous concept when discussing theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood.Ā The independent Turkish news portalĀ AhvalĀ claimsĀ that while Khashoggi was not a Ā Brotherhood member he was āsomeone close to their ideasā:
October 10, 2018 Ā Khashoggi is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but someone close to their ideas, according to his friends, ā¦ āI cannot say he was an official member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe he was at the beginning, but he had close ties. The leaders of the movement in Egypt and Tunisia were Jamalās friends. After the Arab spring, he wanted political Islam to come to power. But he was not an Islamist,ā Ahmed Zaki, from BBC Arabic said.
As forĀ Khashoggi himself, Islamist mediaĀ reportedĀ in 2017 that heĀ denied that being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood although he characterized Brotherhood thought as ānobleā:
September 11, 2017 Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi has denied that he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The writer, who has been banned from publication by the Saudi authorities for the past 9 months, pointed out that the Brotherhood allegation is directed at anyone believing in change, reform or the Arab Spring.Ā Responding on Twitter to another user who asked who was behind the accusations directed at him, Khashoggi said: āFor a while now, I have found that anyone who believes in reform, change, the Arab Spring, and freedom, and those who are proud of their religion and their country is labelled as being part of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems that the Brotherhoodās school of thought is noble.ā
However at the same time, and in anotherĀ interview,Ā Khashoggi gave a somewhat disingenuous denial of Brotherhood membership, stating that he was not āofficially a memberā but did not mind being referred to as such:
September 13, 2017Ā Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi confirmed the news stating that he was suspended from writing for Al-Hayat newspaper, based on a decision by Al-Hayat publisher Khalid bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and the recommendation of Fahd bin Khalid Al Saud.Commenting on the news, Khashoggi said in a tweet that āthe decision of suspension was indeed made by the publisher. I spoke with his Highness a little while ago, we agreed to reject the dissemination of the culture of hatred, and disagreed with regards to the Muslim Brotherhood. I have much appreciation for him.āĀ Khashoggi, who currently resides in Washington, has criticized the arrests of preachers, including Salman al-Awda and Awad al-Qarni, who are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, adding that belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood āis not a charge,ā further noting that he ādoes not feel offended if someone says I am [part of]the Brotherhood, although I am not officially a member.ā
Consistent with ties to theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood isĀ Khashoggiās friendship withĀ Azzam Tamimi, a UK activist forĀ HamasĀ and a leader in the UKĀ Muslim Brotherhood. According to an Associated PressĀ report, the two hd been involved in setting up āpro-democracyā projects since 1992:
Khashoggi had incorporated his democracy advocacy group, DAWN, in January in Delaware, said Khaled Saffuri, another friend. The group was still in the planning stages, and Khashoggi was working on it quietly, likely concerned it could cause trouble for associates, including activists in the Gulf, Saffuri said.Ā The project was expected to reach out to journalists and lobby for change, representing both Islamists and liberals, said another friend,Ā Azzam Tamimi
According to a Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article, Azzam Tamimi was born in 1955 and he was seven when his family moved from Hebron to Kuwait. After high school graduation, he moved to England and the University of Westminster, London. First studying pure science, he changed to(…)
“>Azzam Tamimi
, a prominent Palestinian-British activist and TV presenter.Ā ā¦Ā Tamimi said he and Khashoggi had set up a similar pro-democracy project together in 1992 when they first met. It was called Friends of Democracy in Algeria, he said, and followed the botched elections in Algeria, which the government annulled to avert an imminent Islamist victory.
Although described as a ādemocracy advocacy groupā it should be noted that in reality, as described in an ABC NewsĀ report, DAWN was in fact a stalking horse for the inclusion of āSunni Political Islamā in Middle Eastern governments, presumably including Saudi Arabia.Ā Another self-described Islamic Democracy group is the US-basedĀ Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy
The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) was founded in 1998 in what appears to have been a cooperative effort among the US Muslim Brotherhood, the US State Department and Georgetown University academic Dr.Ā John EspositoĀ whoĀ servedĀ during the 1990’s as a State Department “foreign(…)
“>Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy
(CSID) where Khashoggi gave the keynote address in April 2018 and were heĀ reportedly:
applauded the efforts made by organizations like CSID in advocating for democracy and freedom of speech and helping save the Middle East from drowning in dark ages of dictatorship.
Center for the Study of Islam and DemocracyĀ (CSID) was founded in 1998 in what appears to have been a cooperative effort among the US Muslim Brotherhood, the US State Department and Georgetown University academic Dr.Ā John EspositoĀ whoĀ servedĀ during the 1990ās as a State Department āforeign affairs analystā and who has at least a dozen past or present affiliations with global Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas
TheĀ HamasĀ charterĀ says that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine” and soon after Hamas took over the Gaza strip, Muslim Brotherhood representativesĀ traveledĀ to Gaza from Egypt through the newly-opened border to reviewĀ Hamas military formations. Ā A Hamas journalist(…)
“>Hamas
organizations.Ā From its inception, CSID has argued that the U.S. government should support Islamist movements in foreign countries and has received financial support from the U.S. State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy and the United States Institute of Peace.
The evidence offered above strongly suggests thatĀ Jamal Khashoggi was not only a long-time member of theĀ Muslim Brotherhood and close to theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood but was, in fact, actively supporting Brotherhood-related projects as recently as April of this year as evidenced by his key note address on behalf of the CSID. The GMBDW wished to state in the clearest terms that none of the above should be taken as support for any violence that may or may not have been committed against Mr.Ā Khashoggi by any party. The evidence does however raise serious questions about how such an individual came to be associated with the Washington Post and why he is generally fĆŖted as a āpro-democracy reformerā by so much of the global media. Perhaps much of that media is not aware that theĀ Muslim Brotherhood is oftenĀ categorizedĀ by academics as a āreformist movement.ā
While it would seem unlikely and/or unusual that such a prominent journalist would be a member of theĀ Muslim Brotherhood, the GMBDW has long reported on the example ofĀ Waddah Khanfar, the former General Manager of Al Jazeera who is tied to both theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood and to Hamas as well as currently serving as aĀ trusteeĀ of the US-based International Crisis Group.
We should also add that this is by no means the only example of the Washington Post showing astonishingly badĀ judgment with respect to theĀ Global Muslim Brotherhood. In February 2017, weĀ reportedĀ on the Postās shoddy work with respect to an articleĀ purporting to fact check recent series of claims about long-time Hilary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. As we wrote at that time:
The GMBDW only hopes, and our hopes are perpetually dashed, that the mainstream media in the US would once again assume its rightful role as the guardian of the public interest with respect to the topic.
It would seem our hopes are to be dashed once again.
BREAKING: CNN Reports Saudis Preparing to Admit Jamal Khashoggi Was Killed in āInterrogation Gone Wrongā
byĀ Aidan McLaughlinĀ |Ā Oct 15th, 2018, 3:17 pm
CNN reported on Monday that Saudi Arabia is preparing a report in which they will admit thatĀ Jamal Khashoggi, theĀ Washington PostcolumnistĀ who went missing earlier this month, was killed in an āinterrogation gone wrong.ā
Per two sources who spoke to CNN, however, the Saudis are preparing a report admitting that they intended to abduct and bring Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia, but that he was inadvertently killed in the process. The report is intended, per CNN, to absolve the Saudi government of responsibility for the murder by claiming the operation was not cleared.
CNNāsĀ Arwa DamonĀ reported from Istanbul that the report will most likely conclude āthe operation was carried out without clearance and transparency, and that those involved will be held responsible.ā
Damon added that the Saudisā report is still being prepared, and could change.
On Oct. 14, CBSās ā60 Minutesā aired an interview with PresidentĀ Donald TrumpĀ ā rare for its status as having appeared outside of Fox News or conservative media. Appearing the same weekend as First LadyĀ Melania Trumpās appearanceĀ on ā20/20,ā this would seem to represent a new level of media blitzing on the part of an administration thatās already seen its head get plenty of free promotion during rallies broadcast on cable news. And, like Melania Trumpās utterly-on-message, relentlessly forward-moving TV interview, the Presidentās interview had effectively the same impact as a rally; it allowed him to bulldoze his chief enemy, the media, while airing his own points at ceaseless length. The lesson the media has evidently not learned yet is not to be sitting right there when he does it.Lesley Stahlās interview with Trump was an undeniable get; heād been scarce on mainstream media since around the time he appeared on tape with NBCās Lester Holt and indicated heād fired former FBI Director James Comey in part due to the Russia investigation. But the interview seemed governed by two motives, both of which played into the hands of a media-savvy President whose refusal to play by typical rules of engagement has been at the center of his rise.
First, Stahl seemed to want to conduct a definitive interview with Trump summarizing his presidency so far. In so doing, she skittered across the map of global and domestic issues, seeming to touch on every topic under the sun, from the ultra-current ā the fate of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi ā to the more long-range. Questions about, say, North Korea, tariffs on China, climate change, and NATO were met with long bursts of Trumpian verbiage, spilling out so fast they seemed barely able to be edited. What fell away in editing, or what was barely allowed to happen in the time allotted, were many follow-ups.
And when follow-up questions did happen, they seemed to fall into the interviewās second trap: Trying to crack the code ofĀ Donald Trump, human being. āI wish you could go to Greenland,ā Stahl mused in the brief portion of the interview dealing with climate change, āwatch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.ā Trump shouted her down, predictably unmoved by Stahlās evident passion about a story imbued with dread. He won every segment of the interview because he was utterly unable to brook doubt ā and, at this point, a broadcast dealing with a president who cannot face facts must be armed with real facts of their own. Stahl asked Trump about āthe scientists who say [the effects of climate change are] worse than ever,ā but was unprepared to cite one; knowing, now, that the human factor will not work on Trump, a broadcaster should be prepared to cite hard facts in a face-off with the President.
Not, of course, that those facts will change his mind or even elicit an unexpected answer from the Commander-in-Chief. But it felt like a missed opportunity that both so many ardent Trump fans and so many in the hazy middle tuned into an interview with the President and found so much of what was put to him phrased in loose, conversational terms. If he wonāt deal with the realities of climate change (presented in this interview only in anecdotal terms of ice and hurricanes and in data, never explained, from āNOAA and NASA,ā and not theĀ recent, catastrophic United Nations report) or of abandoning NATO, the broadcaster should rush in to fill the gap. Instead, facts like these ones seemed to be assumed on the part of the viewership at home, and the silences were filled by Trump, who explained away why orthodoxies were wrong while Stahl struggled to break into his monologues. The one moment Stahl meaningfully challenged Trump was on his alliance with North Koreaās Kim Jong-un ā presenting the President with a āresumeā of his conversation partnerās misdeeds in his own country ā but even then, the format demanded she move forward after Trump said the pair shared āa good energy.ā Her next question was, verbatim, āChina.ā And Trump free-associated there, too.
So many of Stahlās questions seemed premised on the notion that Trump could be brought to reason through earnest questioning that treaded somewhat lightly ā but that signaled to viewers at home a certain set of values. This would have been a good playbook for a conservative-but-not-category-busting President Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, perhaps; all players could say their piece, and all could go home relatively unscathed. But even as Trump was unwilling to play along, the questions got no harder. Late in the interview, Stahl asked Trump what had been āthe biggest surpriseā and what he had learned as President, a question unworthy of the occasion and of time that might have been spent fleshing out answers elsewhere. (The surprise is that politicians are āvicious,ā and the President went on.) Trump relentlessly talked over the follow-ups to a further question ā why he didnāt bring the country together in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, seeking a moment of unity. That the Presidentās vanishingly rare appearance on a nonpartisan news program had resulted in a spectacle in which randomly assorted questions were bulldozed by a man eager to speak, and in which the interviewer generally left the viewers to decide what those answers meant without the benefit of meaningful follow-up, made the point clear.
By pushing through questions and by capitalizing on an interview approach seeking to synthesize his entire presidency into two segments of television, Trump effectively converted ā60 Minutesā into a short rally.Ā There are those who will see his rants as worthy, and those who will loathe them; whatever unity can be made to exist by the President exists only within those camps. That ā60 Minutesā went looking for something greater is more proof than viewers needed that their approach to the President left them outmatched.
Lesley Rene Stahl[1]Ā (born December 16, 1941) is an American television journalist.
She has spent most of her career withĀ CBS News, having been affiliated with that network since 1972; since 1991, she has reported for CBS’Ā 60 Minutes.
An honors graduate ofĀ Wheaton CollegeĀ who majored in history,[4]Ā Stahl began her television broadcasting career at Boston’s original Channel 5,Ā WHDH-TV, as a producer and on-air reporter.[5]Ā She joined CBS News in 1972, and became a correspondent in 1974. “I was born on my 30th birthday,” Stahl would later write about the experience. “Everything up till then was prenatal.”[6]Ā Stahl credits her CBS News hire to theĀ Federal Communication Commission‘s 1972 inclusion of women in its affirmative action mandate: “the television networks were scouring the country for women and blacks with any news experience at all. A friend in New York had called to tell me about a memo floating around CBS News mandating that ‘the next reporter we hire will be a woman.'”[7]Ā According to Stahl,Ā Connie ChungĀ andĀ Bernard ShawĀ were “the two other ‘affirmative action babies’ in what became known as the Class of ’72.”[8]Ā Stahl reflected in an interview on her early days at CBS how, on the night of the ’72 Nixon-McGovern election returns, she found her on-air studio chair marked with masking tape, not with her name as with her colleagues, but with “Female.” Stahl was the mentor of CBS news producerĀ Susan Zirinsky.[9]
Stahl’s prominence grew after she coveredĀ Watergate. “I found an apartment in theĀ Watergate complex, moved all my stuff from Boston, and didn’t miss a day of work.Ā … June 1972. Most of the reporters in our bureau were on the road, covering the presidential campaign. Thus, I was sent out to cover the arrest of some men who had broken into one of the buildings in the Watergate complex. That CBS let me, the newest hire, hold on to Watergate as an assignment was a measure of how unimportant the story seemed:Ā … I was the only television reporter covering the early court appearances. When the five Watergate burglars asked for a bail reduction, I got my first scoop. Unlike my competitors, I was able to identify them. The next time the cameraman listened when I said, ‘Roll! That’s them!’ And so CBS was the only network to get pictures of the burglars. I was a hero at the bureau.”Ā [10]
She went on to becomeĀ White HouseĀ correspondent during the presidencies ofĀ Jimmy Carter,Ā Ronald ReaganĀ andĀ George H. W. Bush. At the Republican Convention of 1980, she broke the news on CBS that Reagan’s negotiations with ex-PresidentĀ Gerald FordĀ had broken down and the answer to the question of who would be vice-presidential nominee was: “It’s Bush! Yes, it’s Bush!” George H. W. Bush had been standing perhaps not far away, largely off by himself, looking discouraged because he was sure he wasn’t going to be chosen.
In 1998, she appeared on theĀ NBCĀ sitcomĀ Frasier, playing herself in the episode “Desperately Seeking Closure”. In 2014, she served as a correspondent forĀ Years of Living Dangerously, a documentary show aboutĀ climate change.[13]
Stahl has written two books, the first of which,Ā Reporting Live, was published in 1999:
I had decided by August 1989, in my 48th year, that I had already had the best day of my life.Ā … Then we went toĀ RwandaĀ to see theĀ mountain gorillas,Ā Dian Fossey‘s gorillas in the mist.Ā … After two and a half hoursĀ … there they were: two baby gorillas frolicking like any four-year-olds. We snapped and stared. We were right there,Ā inĀ their lives, in the middle of their open-air house. And then the silverback, the patriarch, seemed to welcome us, as three females kept grooming him.Ā … We spent one hour in their world, watching them tumble and wrestle, nurse their babies, swing in the trees, forage for foodāvines, leaves, berriesāĀ … so close that a female reached out to touch me. When I went to reciprocate, the guide hit my arm with a stick.Ā “Non, madame. C’est inderdit.”Ā … What I decided that day with the gorillas in Rwanda was that the best day of your life may not have happened yet. No matter what you think.[14]
Her second book,Ā Becoming Grandma: The Joys and Science of the New Grandparenting, which chronicles her own experiences with her grandchildren, was published in 2016.
Lesley Stahl hosting the 67th Annual Peabody Awards
She received a Doctorate of Humane LettersĀ honoris causaĀ fromĀ Colgate UniversityĀ in 2008[15]Ā and a Doctorate of Humane LettersĀ honoris causaĀ from Loyola College in Maryland in 2008.
Lesley Stahl was a founding member in 2008, along withĀ Liz Smith,Ā Mary Wells Lawrence, andĀ Joni Evans, ofĀ wowOwow.com, a website for “women over 40” to talk about culture, politics, and gossip.[16]Ā By the end of 2010 it had merged intoĀ PureWow, a Web site aimed at younger women.
Story 4: Kids, What Time Is It? It is Howdy Dowdy Time — Princess Summer-Fall-Winter-Spring — Tone Deaf Elizabeth Warren aka PrincessĀ Pocahontas is 99.999% White — Killing Identity Politics — Who Cares? — Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers — Videos —
Trump reacts to Elizabeth Warren releasing DNA test results
Senator Elizabeth Warren has released a DNA test that provides āstrong evidenceāā she had a Native American in her family tree dating back 6 to 10 generations, an unprecedented move by one of the top possible contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.
Warren, whose claims to Native American blood have been mocked by President Trump and other Republicans, provided the test results to the Globe on Sunday in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years. She planned an elaborate rollout Monday of the results as she aimed for widespread attention.
The analysis of Warrenās DNA was done by Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor and expert in the field who won a 2010 MacArthur fellowship, also known as aĀ genius grant, for his work on tracking population migration via DNA analysis.
He concluded that āthe vast majorityā of Warrenās ancestry is European, but he added that āthe results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor.ā
GetĀ Today in PoliticsĀ in your inbox:
A digest of the top political stories from the Globe, sent to your inbox Monday-Friday.
Bustamante calculated that Warrenās pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree āin the range of 6-10 generations ago.ā That timing fits Warrenās family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American.
Smith was born in the late 1700s. She identified as white in historical documents, though at the time Indians faced discrimination, and Smith would have had strong incentives to call herself white if possible.
The inherent imprecision of the six-page DNA analysis could provide fodder for Warrenās critics. If O.C. Sarah Smith were fully Native American, that would make Warren up to 1/32nd native. But the generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests sheās between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American. The report notes there could be missed ancestors.
Undergoing the test and releasing the results reveal how seriously Warren is taking the attacks from Trump, who has been able to effectively caricature and diminish his national foes via nicknames and conspiracy theories. Trump pushed then President Barack Obama into releasing the long form of his birth certificate to prove what most knew was already true: He was born in America.
The move is also another indication of how seriously Warren is considering running for president. And while itās unclear whether the test will convince Trump and his die-hard supporters, Warren will be able to point to it with other, more open-minded voters. Once Obama produced his birth certificate in 2011, the racist ābirtherāā movement, which thrived on the Internet and was stoked by Trump, largely evaporated.
Warren is seeking reelection in Massachusetts and is expected to easily win a second term. She has said that she will take a āhard lookā at running for the Democratic nomination for president once the midterm elections are over. Sheās already released 10 years worth of her tax returns andĀ made her personnel files available to The Boston Globe, showing that ethnicity was not a factor in her rise in law.
By taking a DNA test, Warren is showing that if she runs for president, she plans to be a very different candidate than Hillary Clinton was. The 2016 Democratic nominee for president chafed at releasing personal information and was dogged throughout her campaign by her use of a private server while she was secretary of state.
Warren provided a sample of her DNA to a private lab in Georgia in August, according to one of the senatorās aides. The data from that test was sent to Bustamante and his team for analysis. Warren received the report last week.
Warren didnāt use a commercial service, but Bustamante is on the scientific advisory board for Ancestry, which provides commercial DNA tests. Heās also consulted on a project for 23andMe, another major DNA testing company.
Warren said she was committed to releasing the report regardless of the results. However, Warrenās aides would not say whether she or any of her three siblings had previously done a commercial DNA test that would have provided them with some assurance about Bustamanteās analysis.
There were five parts of Warrenās DNA that signaled she had a Native American ancestor, according to the report. The largest piece of Native American DNA was found on her 10th chromosome, according to the report. Each human has 23 pairs of chromosomes.
āIt really stood out,ā said Bustamante in an interview. āWe found five segments, and that long segment was pretty significant. It tells us about one ancestor, and we canāt rule out more ancestors.ā
He added: āWe are confident it is not an error.ā
Detecting DNA for Native Americans is particularly tricky because there is an absence of Native American DNA available for comparison. This is in part because Native American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in genetic databases.
āThe tribes have felt they have been exploited,ā explained Lawrence Brody, a senior investigator with the Medical Genomics and Metabolic Genetics Branch at the National Institutes of Health. āThe amount of genetic data that is available from Native Americans is sparse.ā
To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. Thatās because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in whatās now America but also migrated further south. His report explained that the use of reference populations whose genetic material has been fully sequenced was designed āfor maximal accuracy.ā
Bustamante said he can tease out the markers that these South Americans would have in common with Native Americans on the North American continent.
Bustamante also compared Warrenās DNA to white populations in Utah and Great Britain to determine if the amounts of Native American markers in Warrenās sample were significant or just background noise.
Warren has 12 times more Native American blood than a white person from Great Britain and 10 times more than a white person from Utah, the report found.
Warren has come under blistering attacks from Trump for making claims of Native American heritage. His taunts of her as āPocahontasā have become part of his standard rally monologue.
Earlier this month at rally in Iowa, Trump said he hoped Warren would run for president because it would allow him to find out āwhether or not she has Indian blood.ā
In July, during a rally in Montana, Trump imagined debating Warren during the 2020 presidential election and said that heād try to make her take a DNA test by throwing it at her onstage. āWe have to do it gently, because weāre in the #MeToo generation, so we have to be very gentle,ā Trump said.
He also offered to provide $1 million to her charity of choice if she takes the test.
Warrenās Senate campaign has used clips from Trump and his spokeswoman Sarah Sanders attacking her for making the Native American claims in a slickly produced video it planned to distribute Monday morning. It includes a scene of Warren and her three older brothers discussing the issue.
Thereās even footage of Warren calling Bustamante to get the results of her DNA test.
āThe president likes to call my mom a liar. What do the facts say?ā asks Warren, sitting at a desk by behind a Macintosh laptop.
āThe facts suggest that you absolutely have Native American ancestry in your pedigree,ā replies Bustamante, who was also captured on film by Warrenās team.
Bustamante is considered one of the leading DNA analysts in the world. When several DNA experts were asked by the Globe, earlier this year, how theyād recommend Warren go about taking a DNA test, his name came up repeatedly.
He has never donated to Warrenās campaigns. (A different California professor with the same name donated $200 to Obama in 2008, federal records show.)
Questions over Warrenās ethnicity have dogged her since her 2012 Senate campaign. Thatās when GOP operatives found archival stories in the Harvard Crimson of a Harvard Law School spokesman referring to her as a Native American as a way to show the school had a diverse faculty.
During her academic career as a law professor, she had her ethnicity changed from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught from 1987 to 1995, and at Harvard University Law School, where she was a tenured faculty member starting in 1995. (She was a visiting professor at Harvard during the 1992-1993 academic year.)
In an interview with the GlobeĀ publishedĀ last month, Warren explained that she identified herself as Native American in the late 1980s and early 1990s as many of the matriarchs of her family were dying and she began to feel that her family stories and history were becoming lost.
Ivy League universities, like the ones where Warren taught, were under great pressure to show they had diverse staffs.
The University of Pennsylvania filled out a document explaining why it hired a white woman over minority candidates ā clear evidence it didnāt view her as a Native American addition. And the Globe interviewed 31 Harvard Law School faculty members who voted on her appointment there, and all said her heritage was not a factor.
Correction:Ā Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 6th to 10th generation relative. The generational range based on the ancestor that the report identified suggests sheās between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.
Besides Howdy Doody, the other characters in this show are:
Heidi DoodyĀ – Introduced as a stranger who saved Buffalo Bob’s life in Africa, she was adopted as Howdy’s sister.
Phineas T. BlusterĀ – The resident skinflint, mayor of Doodyville and nemesis of Howdy; one of the Bluster triplets.
Petey BlusterĀ – Phineas’s nephew.
Don Jose BlusterĀ – The South American Bluster brother.
Hector Hamhock BlusterĀ – A rarely seen Bluster brother
Princess Summer Fall Winter SpringĀ – Introduced as a puppet, then played by actressĀ Judy Tyler, who had appeared oppositeĀ Elvis PresleyĀ in the 1957 filmĀ Jailhouse Rock. After she was killed in a car accident on July 3, 1957, at the age of 24, the character was portrayed by a marionette.
Dilly DallyĀ – Howdy’s naive boyhood friend.
Inspector John J. FadoozleĀ – “America’s No. 1 private eye” whose character was revealed as the mysterious “Mr. X” who used the pseudonym to run against Howdy for the office of President of All the Boys and Girls of America; children could vote by using ballots that were attached to the wrappers of loaves ofĀ Wonder Bread, a major sponsor of the show.
Chief Thunderthud and Chief FeathermanĀ – Two of severalĀ Native AmericanĀ characters used to emphasize the show’s western theme.
J. Cornelius CobbĀ – The shopkeeper played by Nick Nicholson, who had a strong dislike for clowns.
Sandra the Witch
Capt. Windy Scuttlebut
Flub-a-DubĀ – A combination of eight animals. He had aĀ duck‘s bill, aĀ cat‘s whiskers, aĀ spaniel‘s ears, aĀ giraffe‘s neck, aĀ dachshund‘s body, aĀ seal‘s flippers, aĀ pig‘s tail, and anĀ elephant‘s memory.
If the Massachusetts senator is now a person of color then the term has no meaning.
By James Freeman
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) arrives for a procedural vote on the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on October 5.Ā PHOTO:Ā MARY F. CALVERT/REUTERS
āElizabeth Warrenās Native American Heritageā is the title of aĀ new campaign videoĀ promoting the senior senator from Massachusetts. Ms. Warren, a former Harvard law professor, is claiming vindication after presenting the results of a genetic test which appears to show she likely has more of a claim to Native American heritageābut perhaps less of a claimāthan the average white person in the United States.
The likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has been trying to find some way to respond to questions about her longtime claim of Native American heritage given that her family doesnāt belong to a tribe.
āWarren provided a sample of her DNA to a private lab in Georgia in August, according to one of the senatorās aides,āĀ says a report todayĀ by Annie Linskey in the Boston Globe. But the senator sought a judgment on the results from Carlos Bustamante, a professor of biomedical data science at Stanford. Writes Ms. Linskey:
Warren didnāt use a commercial service, but Bustamante is on the scientific advisory board for Ancestry, which provides commercial DNA tests. Heās also consulted on a project for 23andMe, another major DNA testing company.
Warren said she was committed to releasing the report regardless of the results. However, Warrenās aides would not say whether she or any of her three siblings had previously done a commercial DNA test that would have provided them with some assurance about Bustamanteās analysis.
This column doesnāt find it odd that the senator didnāt want to rely on analysis performed by a commercial firm given her hostility to commerce generally. In any case hereās Professor BustamanteāsĀ conclusionĀ after studying the Warren test results:
While the vast majority of the individualās ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the individualās pedigree, likely in the range of 6-10 generations ago.
This suggests that the senator is somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th Native American. A 2014 news account seems to provide useful context. āIn recent years geneticists have been uncovering new evidence about our shared heritage, and last week a team of scientists published the biggest genetic profile of the United States to date, based on a study of 160,000 people,āĀ reportedĀ Carl Zimmer in the New York Times. Mr. Zimmer added:
The researchers found that European-Americans had genomes that were on average 98.6 percent European, .19 percent African, and .18 Native American.
These broad estimates masked wide variation among individuals. Based on their sample, the resarchers estimated that over six million European-Americans have some African ancestry. As many as five million have genomes that are at least 1 percent Native American in origin.
At least according to the report from Professor Bustamante, itās possible that Sen. Warren has far less than one percent Native American ancestry, and that her genetic makeup is perhaps similar to that of the average white person in the U.S. Could this create a problem for the senator both among those who have never claimed minority status and those who believe they clearly deserve it? Ms. Warrenās Senate re-election campaign is now rolling out testimonials from academic colleagues who say she never benefited from her identification as a Native American. The Boston Globeās Ms. Linskey has previouslyĀ reportedĀ on Ms. Warrenās various racial claims:
In 1984, she contributed five recipes to a Native American cookbook entitled āPow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes From Families of the Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole.ā In the book, which was edited by her cousin and unearthed during her 2012 campaign by the Boston Herald, her name is listed as āElizabeth Warren, Cherokee.ā
Warren also listed herself as a minority in a legal directory published by the Association of American Law Schools from 1986 to 1995. Sheās never provided a clear answer on why she stopped self-identifying.
She was also listed as a Native American in federal forms filed by the law schools at Harvard University and University of Pennsylvania where she worked.
And in 1996, as Harvard Law School was being criticized for lacking diversity, a spokesman for the law school told the Harvard Crimson that Warren was Native American.
Given the Bustamante analysis, Ms. Warren might have chosen to acknowledge that her claims of minority status were a stretch. But sheās instead decided to present it as vindication,Ā even demandingĀ on Twitter that the President donate $1 million to something called the National Indigenous Womenās Resource Center.
At a speech in July, Mr. TrumpĀ discussedĀ the possibility of debating Sen. Warren in the 2020 campaign. Mr. Trump said that āin the middle of the debate, when she proclaims sheās of Indian heritageā he would toss a DNA testing kit her way and say, āI will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows youāre an Indian.ā
One could argue that the President didnāt actually make the offer but instead described a hypothetical scenario. Yet by demanding a Trump payment Sen. Warren clearly seems to be asserting that she is āan Indian.ā
Before facing President Trump in a 2020 debate, Sen. Warren will first need to win over the Democrats who vote in presidential primaries. If these voters accept her as a Native American then logically it suggests that most if not all Americans can also claim to be members of groups that have historically suffered discrimination. Weāre all minorities now?
This column thinks it would be wonderful if politicians decided to stop separating Americans by race but doubts Ms. Warren can sell this to Democratic party activists.
PocahontasĀ (bornĀ Matoaka, known asĀ Amonute,Ā c.Ā 1596 ā March 1617) was aĀ Native American[2][3][4]Ā woman notable for her association with the colonial settlement atĀ Jamestown, Virginia. Pocahontas was the daughter ofĀ Powhatan, theĀ paramount chief[2]Ā of a network of tributary tribal nations in theĀ Tsenacommacah, encompassing theĀ Tidewater regionĀ ofĀ Virginia. In a well-known historical anecdote, she saved the life of a captive of the Native Americans, the EnglishmanĀ John Smith, in 1607 by placing her head upon his own when her father raised his war club to execute him. Many historians doubt the veracity of this story.[5][6]
Pocahontas was captured and held for ransom by the English during Anglo-Indian hostilities in 1613. During her captivity, she converted toĀ ChristianityĀ and took the name Rebecca. When the opportunity arose for her to return to her people, she chose to remain with the English. In April 1614, at the age of 17, she married tobacco planterĀ John Rolfe, and in January 1615, she bore their son,Ā Thomas Rolfe.[1]
In 1616, the Rolfes travelled to London. Pocahontas was presented to English society as an example of theĀ “civilized savage”Ā in hopes of stimulating investment in the Jamestown settlement. She became something of a celebrity, was elegantly fĆŖted, and attended aĀ masqueĀ atĀ Whitehall Palace. In 1617, the Rolfes set sail for Virginia, but Pocahontas died atĀ GravesendĀ of unknown causes, aged 20 or 21. She was buried inĀ St George’s Church, GravesendĀ in England, but her grave’s exact location is unknown, as the church has been rebuilt.[1]
Numerous places, landmarks, and products in the United States have been named after Pocahontas. Her story has been romanticized over the years, and she is a subject of art, literature, and film. Many famous people have claimed to be among her descendants through her son, including members of theĀ First Families of Virginia,Ā First LadyĀ Edith Wilson, American Western actorĀ Glenn Strange, Las Vegas performerĀ Wayne Newton, and astronomerĀ Percival Lowell.[7]
Early life
Pocahontas’s birth year is unknown, but some historians estimate it to have been around 1596.[1]Ā InĀ A True Relation of VirginiaĀ (1608), Smith described the Pocahontas he met in the spring of 1608 as “a child of ten years old”.[8]Ā In a 1616 letter, he again described her as she was in 1608, but this time as “a child of twelve or thirteen years of age”.[9]
Pocahontas was the daughter ofĀ Chief Powhatan, paramount chief ofĀ Tsenacommacah, an alliance of about 30Ā Algonquian-speakingĀ groups and petty chiefdoms inĀ Tidewater, Virginia.[10]Ā Her mother’s name and origins are unknown but she was probably of lowly status. The colonistĀ Henry Spelman, who had lived among the Powhatan as an interpreter, noted that when one of the paramount chief’s many wives gave birth to a child, the mother was returned to her place of origin, to be supported there by the paramount chief until she found another husband.[11]Ā In the traditional histories of the Powhatan, Pocahontas’s mother died in childbirth.[12][13]Ā An oral history of the Mattaponi Reservation Peoples, who are descendants of the Powhatan, claims that Pocahontas’s mother was first wife of Powhatan, and that Pocahontas was named after her.[14]
Pocahontas’s childhood was probably little different from that of most girls who lived in Tsenacommacah. She would have learned how to perform what was considered women’s work: foraging for food and firewood, farming, and searching for the plant materials used in building thatched houses.[15]Ā As she grew older, she would have helped other members of Powhatan’s household with preparations for large feasts.[13]Ā Serving feasts, such as the one presented to John Smith after his capture, was a regular obligation of theĀ Mamanatowick, or paramount chief.[16]
Names
At the time Pocahontas was born, it was common for Powhatan Native Americans to be given several personal names, have more than one name at the same time, have secret names that only a select few knew, and to change their names on important occasions. Bestowed at different times, the names carried different meanings and might be used in different contexts.[17]Ā Pocahontas was no different. Early in her life, she was given a secret name, Matoaka, but later she was also known as Amonute. Matoaka means “Bright Stream Between the Hills”; Amonute has not been translated.[18][19]
According to the colonistĀ William Strachey, “Pocahontas” was a childhood nickname that probably referred to her frolicsome nature; it meant “little wanton”;[20]Ā some interpret the meaning as “playful one”.[16]Ā The 18th-century historianĀ William StithĀ claimed that “her real name, it seems, was originally Matoax, which the Indians carefully concealed from the English and changed it to Pocahontas, out of a superstitious fear, lest they, by the knowledge of her true name, should be enabled to do her some hurt.”[21]Ā According to the anthropologistĀ Helen C. Rountree, Pocahontas “revealed [her secret name] to the English only after she had taken another religiousābaptismalāname, Rebecca”.[22]
Pocahontas’s Christian name, Rebecca, may have been a symbolic gesture toĀ RebeccaĀ of theĀ Book of GenesisĀ who, as the mother ofĀ JacobĀ andĀ Esau, was the mother of two “nations”, or distinct peoples. Pocahontas, as a Powhatan marrying an Englishman, may have been seen by herself and her contemporaries as also potentially a matriarchal figure of two distinct peoples.[23]
Title and status
Pocahontas has been considered in popular culture aĀ princess. In 1841, William Watson Waldron ofĀ Trinity College, Dublin, in Ireland, publishedĀ Pocahontas, American Princess: and Other Poems, calling her “the beloved and only surviving daughter of the king”.[24]Pocahontas was her father’s “delight and darling”, according to the colonistĀ Captain Ralph Hamor[25]Ā but she was not in line to inherit a position as aĀ weroance, subchief, orĀ mamanatowickĀ (paramount chief). Instead, Powhatan’s brothers, sisters, and his sisters’ children all stood in line to succeed him.[26]Ā In hisĀ A Map of VirginiaĀ John Smith explained how matrilineal inheritance worked among the Powhatan:
His [Powhatan’s] kingdom descendeth not to his sonnes nor children: but first to his brethren, whereof he hath three namely Opitchapan,Ā Opechanncanough, and Catataugh; and after their decease to his sisters. First to the eldest sister, then to the rest: and after them to the heires male and female of the eldest sister; but never to the heires of the males.
Interactions with the English
John Smith
In thisĀ chromolithographĀ credited to the New England Chromo. Lith. Company, around 1870, Pocahontas saves the life of John Smith. The scene is idealized and relies on stereotypes of Native Americans rather than reliable information about the particulars of this historical moment. There are no mountains in Tidewater Virginia, for example, and the Powhatans lived not inĀ tipisĀ but in thatched houses. And the scene that Smith famously described in hisĀ Generall HistorieĀ (1624) did not take place outdoors but in aĀ longhouse.
Pocahontas is most famously linked to the English colonistĀ Captain John Smith, who arrived in Virginia with a hundred other settlers in April 1607, at the behest of theĀ London Company. After building a fort on a marshy peninsula poking out into theĀ James River, the Englishmen had numerous encounters over the next several months with the people of Tsenacommacah, some of them friendly, some hostile. Then, in December 1607, while exploring on theĀ Chickahominy River, Smith was captured by a hunting party led by Powhatan’s younger brother (or close relative)Ā OpechancanoughĀ and brought to Powhatan’s capital atĀ Werowocomoco. In his 1608 account, Smith describes a great feast followed by a long talk with Powhatan. He does not mention Pocahontas in relation to his capture, and claims that they first met some months later.[27]Ā [28]Ā Huber understands the meeting of Smith and Powhatan as the latter’s attempt to bring Smith, and so the English, into his chiefdom: Powhatan offered Smith rule of the town of Capahosic, which was close to Powhatan’s capital at Werowocomoco. The paramount chief thus hoped to keep Smith and his men “nearby and better under control”.[29]
In 1616, Smith wrote a letter toĀ Queen AnneĀ in anticipation of Pocahontas’s visit to England. In this new account, his capture included the threat of his own death: “at the minute of my execution”, he wrote, “she [Pocahontas] hazarded the beating out of her own brains to save mine; and not only that but so prevailed with her father, that I was safely conducted to Jamestown.”[9]Ā In his 1624Ā Generall Historie, published long after the death of Pocahontas, Smith expanded the story. Writing about himself in the third person, he explained that after he was captured and taken to the paramount chief, “two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then as many as could layd hands on him [Smith], dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his braines, Pocahontas the Kings dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to save him from deathĀ …”[30]
In a later publication,Ā True TravelsĀ (1630), Smith claimed a similar rescue by another young girl in 1602, following his capture byĀ TurksĀ in Hungary; the story resembles a popular contemporary type of moral tale, in which a Christian hero maintains his faith despite threats and intimidation.Ā Karen Ordahl KuppermanĀ suggests that Smith used such details to embroider his first account, thus producing a more dramatic, second account of his encounter with Pocahontas as a heroine worthy of reception by Queen Anne. Its later revision and publication was probably an attempt to raise his own stock and reputation; he had long since fallen from favor with theĀ London Company, which had funded the Jamestown enterprise.[31]Ā AnthropologistĀ Frederic W. Gleach, drawing on substantial ethnohistory, suggests that Smith’s second account, while substantially accurate, represents his misunderstanding of a three-stage ritual intended to adopt Smith, as representative of the English colony, into the confederacy;[32][33]Ā but not all writers are convinced, some suggesting the absence of certain corroborating evidence.[34]
Early histories did establish that Pocahontas befriended Smith and the Jamestown colony. Pocahontas often went to the settlement and played games with the boys there.[35]Ā When the colonists were starving, “every once in four or five days, Pocahontas with her attendants brought him [Smith] so much provision that saved many of their lives that else for all this had starved with hunger”.[36]Ā As the colonists expanded their settlement further, the Powhatan felt their lands were threatened, and conflicts arose again.
In late 1609, an injury from a gunpowder explosion forced Smith to return to England for medical care. The English told the Powhatans that Smith was dead. Pocahontas believed that account and hence stopped visiting Jamestown. Much later, she learned that he was living in England when she traveled there with her husband, John Rolfe.[37]
Capture
In his engravingĀ The abduction of PocahontasĀ (1619),Ā Johann Theodor de BryĀ depicts a full narrative. Starting in the lower left, Pocahontas (centre) is deceived by theĀ weroanceĀ Iopassus, who holds as bait a copper kettle, and his wife, who pretends to cry. At centre right, Pocahontas is put on the boat and feasted. In the background, the action moves from the Potomac to the York River, where negotiations for a hostage trade fail and the English attack and burn a Native American village.[38]
Pocahontas’s capture occurred in the context of theĀ First Anglo-Powhatan War, a conflict between the Jamestown settlers and the Native Americans that began late in the summer of 1609.[39]Ā In the first years of war, the English took control of theĀ James River, both at its mouth and at the falls. CaptainĀ Samuel Argall, in the meantime, pursued contacts with Native American groups in the northern portion of Powhatan’s paramount chiefdom. TheĀ Patawomecks, who lived on theĀ Potomac River, were not always loyal to Powhatan, and living with them was a young English interpreter namedĀ Henry Spelman. In March 1613, Argall learned that Pocahontas was visiting the Patawomeck village of Passapatanzy and living under the protection of theĀ WeroanceĀ Iopassus (also known as Japazaws).[40]
With Spelman’s help translating, Argall pressured Iopassus to assist in Pocahontas’s capture by promising an alliance with the English against the Powhatans.[40]Ā They tricked Pocahontas into boarding Argall’s ship and held her for ransom, demanding the release of English prisoners held by her father, along with various stolen weapons and tools.[41]Ā Powhatan returned the prisoners but failed to satisfy the colonists with the number of weapons and tools he returned. A long standoff ensued, during which the English kept Pocahontas captive.
During the yearlong wait, she was held atĀ Henricus, in modern-dayĀ Chesterfield County, Virginia. Little is known about her life there, although colonist Ralph Hamor wrote that she received “extraordinary courteous usage”.[42]Linwood “Little Bear” Custalow, in a 2007 book, refers to an oral tradition that during this time, Pocahontas was raped; according to Helen Rountree, “Other historians have disputed that such oral tradition survived and instead argue that any mistreatment of Pocahontas would have gone against the interests of the English in their negotiations with Powhatan. A truce had been called, the Indians still far outnumbered the English, and the colonists feared retaliation.”[43]
In March 1614, the standoff built up to a violent confrontation between hundreds of English and Powhatan men on theĀ Pamunkey River. At Powhatan’s capital of Matchcot, the English encountered a group of senior Native American leaders. The English allowed Pocahontas to talk to her countrymen. When Powhatan arrived, Pocahontas reportedly rebuked him for valuing her “less than old swords, pieces, or axes”, and said that she preferred to live with the English, “who loved her”.[45]
Possible first marriage
Current Mattaponi tradition holds that Pocahontas’s first husband was Kocoum, brother of the PatawomeckĀ weroanceĀ Japazaws, and that Kocoum was killed by the English after his wife’s capture in 1613.[46]Ā Today’s Patawomecks believe that Pocahontas and Kocoum had a daughter, Ka-Okee, who was raised by the Patawomecks after her father’s death and her mother’s abduction.[47]
Kocoum’s actual identity, location, and even existence have been widely debated among scholars for centuries, with several historians[who?]Ā arguing that the only mention of a “Kocoum” in any English document is taken from a brief statement written about 1616 byĀ William StracheyĀ in England that Pocahontas had been living married to a “private captaine called Kocoum” for two years.[48]Ā Since 1614 is certainly when she married John Rolfe, and no other records even hint at any previous husband, it has accordingly been suggested that when Strachey wrote of the “private captaine called Kocoum” he was mistakenly referring to Rolfe himself, with the reference being later misunderstood as one of Powhatan’s officers.[49]Ā There was a Powhatan military rank calledĀ kokoraws, sometimes translated “captain”, and scholars have suggested[attribution needed]Ā that Strachey could have meant this as one of his famously divergent spellings, as aĀ glossĀ to “Captayne”. In addition, the date of Strachey’s original statement has been widely disputed by numerous authors attempting either to argue or refute that Pocahontas had been previously married. If there was such a marriage and Kocoum was not murdered, it likely ended, according to Powhatan custom, when Pocahontas was captured.[50]
During her stay inĀ Henricus, Pocahontas metĀ John Rolfe. Rolfe’s English-born wife, Sarah Hacker, and child, Bermuda Rolfe, had died on the way to Virginia after the wreck of the ship “Sea Venture” on the Summer Isles, also known asĀ Bermuda. Rolfe established a Virginia plantation,Ā Varina Farms, where he successfully cultivated a new strain ofĀ tobacco. He was a pious man and agonized over the potential moral repercussions of marrying a heathen, though in fact Pocahontas had by this time accepted theĀ AnglicanĀ faith and taken the baptismal name Rebecca. In a long letter to the governor requesting permission to wed her, he expressed his love for Pocahontas and his belief that he would be saving her soul. He wrote that he was
motivated not by the unbridled desire of carnal affection, but for the good of this plantation, for the honor of our country, for the Glory of God, for my own salvation … namely Pocahontas, to whom my hearty and best thoughts are, and have been a long time so entangled, and enthralled in so intricate a labyrinth that I was even a-wearied to unwind myself thereout.[51]
Pocahontas’s feelings for Rolfe are unknown. They were married on April 5, 1614, by chaplainĀ Richard Buck, probably at Jamestown. For two years they lived at Varina Farms, across theĀ James RiverĀ from Henricus. Their son,Ā Thomas, was born on January 30, 1615.[52]
Their marriage created a climate of peace between the Jamestown colonists and Powhatan’s tribes; it endured for eight years as the “Peace of Pocahontas.”[53]Ā In 1615, Ralph Hamor wrote, “Since the wedding we have had friendly commerce and trade not only with Powhatan but also with his subjects round about us.”[54]
England
TheĀ Sedgeford Hall Portrait, once thought to represent Pocahontas and Thomas Rolfe, is now believed to actually depict the wife (Pe-o-ka) and son ofĀ Osceola, Seminole Indian Chief.[55]
The Virginia Company of London had long seen one of its primary goals as the conversion of Native Americans to Christianity. With the conversion of Pocahontas and her marriage to an EnglishmanĀ ā all of which helped bring an end to theĀ First Anglo-Powhatan WarĀ ā the company saw an opportunity to promote investment. The company decided to bring Pocahontas to England as a symbol of the tamed New World “savage” and the success of the Virginia colony.[56]Ā In 1616, the Rolfes travelled to England, arriving at the port ofĀ PlymouthĀ on June 12.[57]Ā They journeyed to London by coach, accompanied by a group of about eleven other Powhatans, including a holy man namedĀ Tomocomo.[58]Ā John Smith was living in London at the time and while Pocahontas was in Plymouth, she learned he was still alive.[59]Ā Smith did not meet Pocahontas, but wrote to QueenĀ Anne, the wife ofĀ King James, urging that Pocahontas be treated with respect as a royal visitor. He suggested that if she were treated badly, her “present love to us and Christianity might turn to … scorn and fury”, and England might lose the chance to “rightly have a Kingdom by her means”.[9]
Pocahontas was entertained at various social gatherings. On January 5, 1617, she and Tomocomo were brought before the king at the oldĀ Banqueting HouseĀ in theĀ Palace of WhitehallĀ at a performance ofĀ Ben Jonson‘sĀ masqueĀ The Vision of Delight. According to Smith, King James was so unprepossessing that neither Pocahontas nor Tomocomo realized whom they had met until it was explained to them afterward.[59]
Although Pocahontas was not a princess in Powhatan culture, the Virginia Company nevertheless presented her as one to the English public. The inscription on a 1616 engraving of Pocahontas, made for the company, reads:Ā “MATOAKA ALS REBECCA FILIA POTENTISSĀ : PRINCĀ : POWHATANI IMP:VIRGINIĆ”, which means: “Matoaka, alias Rebecca, daughter of the most powerful prince of the Powhatan Empire of Virginia”. Many English at this time recognized Powhatan as the ruler of an empire, and presumably accorded to his daughter what they considered appropriate status. Smith’s letter to Queen Anne refers to “Powhatan their chief King”.[9]Ā Cleric and travel writerĀ Samuel PurchasĀ recalled meeting Pocahontas in London, noting that she impressed those she met because she “carried her selfe as the daughter of a king”.[60]Ā When he met her again in London, Smith referred to Pocahontas deferentially as a “Kings daughter”.[61]
Pocahontas was apparently treated well in London. At the masque, her seats were described as “well placed”,[62]Ā and, according to Purchas,Ā John King,Ā Bishop of London, “entertained her with festival state and pomp beyond what I have seen in his greate hospitalitie afforded to other ladies”.[63]
Not all the English were so impressed. According to Helen C. Rountree, “there is no contemporary evidence to suggestĀ … that Pocahontas was regarded [in England] as anything like royalty”. Rather, she was considered to be something of a curiosity and, according to one observer, she was merely “the Virginian woman”.[26]
Pocahontas and Rolfe lived in the suburb ofĀ Brentford,Ā Middlesex, for some time, as well as at Rolfe’s family home at Heacham Hall,Ā Heacham,Ā Norfolk. In early 1617, Smith met the couple at a social gathering and later wrote that when Pocahontas saw him, “without any words, she turned about, obscured her face, as not seeming well contented”, and was left alone for two or three hours. Later, they spoke more; Smith’s record of what she said to him is fragmentary and enigmatic. She reminded him of the “courtesies she had done”, saying, “you did promise Powhatan what was yours would be his, and he the like to you”. She then discomfited him by calling him “father”, explaining Smith had called Powhatan “father” when a stranger in Virginia, “and by the same reason so must I do you”. Smith did not accept this form of address because, he wrote, Pocahontas outranked him as “a King’s daughter”. Pocahontas then, “with a well-set countenance”, said:
Were you not afraid to come into my father’s country and caused fear in him and all his people (but me) and fear you here I should call you “father”? I tell you then I will, and you shall call me child, and so I will be for ever and ever your countryman.[59]
Finally, Pocahontas told Smith that she and her fellow Native Americans had thought him dead, but her father had told Tomocomo to seek him “because your countrymen will lie much”.[59]
In March 1617, Rolfe and Pocahontas boarded a ship to return to Virginia; the ship had sailed only as far asĀ GravesendĀ on theĀ river ThamesĀ when Pocahontas became gravely ill.[64]Ā She was taken ashore and died at the approximate age of 21. It is not known what caused her death, but theories range fromĀ pneumonia,Ā smallpox, andĀ tuberculosisĀ to her having been poisoned.[65]Ā According to Rolfe, she died saying, “all must die, but tis enough that her child liveth”.[66]
Pocahontas’s funeral took place on March 21, 1617, in the parish ofĀ Saint George’s, Gravesend.[67]Ā Her grave is thought to be underneath the church’sĀ chancel, though since that church was destroyed in a fire in 1727, its exact site is unknown.[68]Ā Her memory is honored with a life-size bronze statue at St. George’s Church byĀ William Ordway Partridge.[69]
Pocahontas and her husband,Ā John Rolfe, had one child,Ā Thomas Rolfe, who was born in January 1615. The following year, Thomas’ parents travelled to London.
In 1907, Pocahontas became the first Native American to be honored on a US stamp.[71]Ā She was a member of the inaugural class ofĀ Virginia Women in HistoryĀ in 2000.[72]
After her death, increasingly fanciful and romanticized representations of Pocahontas were produced, in which Pocahontas and Smith were romantically involved. Contemporary sources substantiate claims of their friendship, not romance.[53]Ā The first claim of their romantic involvement was in John Davis’Ā Travels in the United States of AmericaĀ (1803)[75]
On stage
Miss PocahontasĀ (Broadway musical) – Lyric Theatre, New York City – Oct 28, 1907.
PocahontasĀ (ballet) byĀ Elliot Carter, Jr. – Martin Beck Theatre, New York City – May 24, 1939
PocahontasĀ (musical) by Kermit Goell – Lyric Theatre (West End, London) – November 14, 1963
TheĀ Jamestown Exposition, held in Norfolk from April 26 to December 1, 1907, celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement in 1607 as the first permanent British colony in America. In conjunction with the Exposition, three commemorative postage stamps were issued. The 5-cent portrays Pocahontas, modelled fromĀ Simon van de Passe‘s 1616 engraving. About 8 million were issued.[76]
PocahontasĀ (1995), aĀ Walt Disney CompanyĀ animated feature which presents a fictional romantic affair between Pocahontas and John Smith, in which Pocahontas teaches Smith respect for nature
Davis, John (1803).Ā Travels in the United States of America.[75]
In music
“Fever” byĀ Peggy LeeĀ describes an affair between Pocahontas and John Smith
Neil Young‘s song “Pocahontas“, on his albumĀ Rust Never SleepsĀ (1979), is based on Strachey’s account and expresses the speaker’s desire to sleep with her “as part of his romantic yearning to return to a preconquest, natural world”.[79]
A woman (Pocahontas) standing half draped in fur skin tunic holding a cross in right hand, leash in left hand and a reclining fawn.
In visual art
The only contemporary portrait of Pocahontas isĀ Simon van de Passe‘sĀ engravingĀ of 1616. In this portrait, he tried to portray her Virginia-Native American features.[citation needed]
The abduction of PocahontasĀ (1619), a narrative engraving byĀ Johann Theodor de Bry
Fiscal 2018 budget deficit up 17% to $779 billionĀ Ā
The U.S. federal budget deficit rose in fiscal 2018 to the highest level in six years as spending climbed, the Trump administration said Monday.
The deficit jumped to $779 billion, $113 billion or 17 percent higher than the previous fiscal period, according to a statement from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. It was larger than any year since 2012, when it topped $1 trillion. The budget shortfall rose to 3.9 percent of U.S.Ā gross domestic product.
The deficit increased by $70 billion less than anticipated in a report published in July, according to the two officials.
Federal revenue rose only slightly, by $14 billion after Republicans chopped tax rates for corporations and most individuals. Outlays climbed by $127 billion, or 3.2 percent. A spike in defense spending, as well as increases for Medicaid, Social Security and disaster relief, contributed to the increase.
Trump: We don’t have to go as fast on interest ratesĀ Ā
The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have pledged their commitment to fiscal discipline, despite the fact that they passed a tax law projected to dramatically expand budget deficits last year and then authorized a boost in spending. In a statement, Mulvaney claimed that “America’s booming economy will create increased government revenues,” a point the GOP has repeatedly argued in favor of its tax plan.
“But this fiscal picture is a blunt warning to Congress of the dire consequences of irresponsible and unnecessary spending,” he added. “Going forward, President Trump and this Administration will continue to work with Congress to make the difficult choices needed to bring fiscal restraint, which, when matched with increasing revenue, will reduce our deficit.”
Several independent analyses have estimated the GOP tax plan will cause budget deficits to grow dramatically over time, even after economic growth is taken into account.
The Trump administration has proposed dramatic cuts to spending in several government agencies to reduce deficits. Even many Republicans have rejected the severity of proposed budget cuts.
The Treasury noted that receipts related to “excise, customs and other” jumped to $35 billion in September 2018, a 35 percent increase over the prior-year period. It is unclear how much of that revenue relates to Trump’s tariffs on imports from major trading partners.
Story 1:Ā Pastor Andrew BrunsonĀ After Two Years Held By Turkey For Alledgedly Abetting Terrorist Groups and Espionage,Ā Convicted, Sentence Commuted and Freed To Go Home — Videos —
Special Report w/ Bret Baier 10/12/18 | Breaking Fox News Today | October 12, 2018
Turkish court releases Pastor Brunson from house arrest
Turkish court frees American pastor Andrew Brunson
Turkey: US pastor Andrew Brunson returns to house after release by court
US pastor Andrew Brunson leaves Turkey
Trump says freed Christian pastor Andrew Brunson could meet with him in the Oval Office as soon as TOMORROW after Turkish court freed him following ‘terrorism’ arrest
Andrew Brunson faced life in jail if convictedĀ of terror charges and espionage
The pastor, originally from North Carolina, had lived in Turkey for 20 years
President Donald Trump has said on Twitter that Turkey must free Brunson, 50
Trump’s tariff on Turkish steel and aluminum imports triggered a currency crisis
President now says Brunson will meet him in the Oval Office, perhaps Saturday
He insisted no deal was struck for Brunson’s releaseĀ
PUBLISHED:Ā 04:38 EDT, 12 October 2018Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 01:02 EDT, 13 October 2018
President Donald Trump will soon meet with American pastor Andrew Brunson, who a Turkish court released on Friday despite convicting him on a terrorism charge and sentencing him to three years in jail. The court declared that he should walk free since he has already spent more than two years on house arrest.
Traveling in Ohio, President Donald Trump told reporters that it was ‘good news’ and he understands that Brunson is ‘in good shape.’Ā Ā Trump has long pressed Turkey for the pastor’s release.
‘Heās going to be coming to the Oval Office, most likely on Saturday,’ the president said in Ohio. ‘But weāre very honored to have him back here with us. He suffered greatly but weāre very appreciative of a lot of people, a lot of people.’
US pastor Brunson arrives at Adnan Menderes airport in Izmir, after being freed
US pastor Andrew Craig Brunson (down L), is escorted to his home in Izmir, Turkey, before heading to the airport to board a US military plane to begin his journey back to the United States after a court freed him
‘We went through a system and we got him out. We tried to get him out for a long time. This has nothing to do with anything and thereās no deal there at all, thereās no deal,’ he insisted.
The White House said it was still ‘deeply concerned about the continued detention of other United States citizens in Turkey and around the world, and urge the resolution of all these cases in a transparent and fair manner.’
The Turkish court’s decision to lift judicial controls meant that evangelical pastor Brunson, at the heart of a diplomatic spat between the two countries, can leave Turkey and return to the United States.
The trial of pastor Andrew Craig Brunson (pictured), which has huge implications for U.S.-Turkey relations, ended Friday with an order to release him ā a move that allows him to leave the country
President Donald Trump told reporters in Ohio that Brunson will soon meet with him in the Oval Office
The White House said that despite the release of Brunson (shown in the back seat) it was still ‘deeply concerned about the continued detention of other United States citizens in Turkey and around the world, and urge the resolution of all these cases in a transparent and fair manner.’
Brunson’s arrest in 2016 sparked a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and the Trump administration, which had threatened new sanctions against the Erdogan government.
President Donald Trump tweetedĀ ā after international press reported the verdict ā that he was ‘[w]orking very hard on Pastor Brunson!’
He later added in a second tweet: ‘My thoughts and prayers are with Pastor Brunson, and we hope to have him safely back home soon!’
And then a third hit Twitter: ‘PASTOR BRUNSON JUST RELEASED. WILL BE HOME SOON!’
Fahrettin Altun, communications director for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, insisted that Turkish courts are independent from governments, including Trump’s.
‘We would like to remind him once again that Turkey is a democratic country with the rule of law, and that Turkish courts are independent, he told reporters. ‘No body, authority, office or person may issue orders or instructions to the courts or to judges in the exercise of their powers.’
Pamela Brunson, 75, the mother of the pastor, was at her home in Black Mountain, a town in North Carolina near Asheville, when she learned of the news from a Reuters reporter calling about the court’s decision.
A U.S. embassy official escorted Norine Brunson, the wife of Andrew Brunson, before his trial in Izmir, Turkey, early Friday, October 12
US pastor Andrew Brunson (C) travels in a police vehicle escorted by Turkish police as he enters Aliaga Prison Court at Aliaga District in Izmir
‘They have?’ she said, her voice quavering. ‘Well, we were at an all-night prayer meeting during the trial and we got home and we fell asleep. We were up all night. Praise God! I’m so excited! Oh that’s wonderful! Thank you so much for letting us know. We’re so happy.’
She brought her husband, Ron, near the phone as the reporter read aloud some of a published Reuters report about the proceedings in Turkey.
‘We are overjoyed that God has answered the prayers of so many people around the world,’ she said.
In Turkey, witnesses said Brunson wept as the decision was announced. Before the judge’s ruling, the pastor told the court: ‘I am an innocent man. I love Jesus, I love Turkey.’
The fourth hearing of the case against Brunson took place in a prison complex near the western Turkish city of Izmir.
Brunson, anĀ evangelical pastor accused of terror-related charges and espionage, arrived in a secured convoy before daybreak. He had faced up to 35 years in jail.
Brunson, 50, has lived in Turkey for more than two decades. He rejected the charges and strongly maintained his innocence.
President Donald Trump tweeted after international press reported Brunson’s release that he was ‘[w]orking very hard on Partor Brunson, later adding his ‘thoughts and prayers’ and a prediction that he will have a safe return to the United States
He is one of thousands caught up in the widespread government crackdown that followed a failed coup against the Turkish government in July 2016.
Prosecutors accuse Brunson of committing crimes on behalf of terror groups, linking him to outlawed Kurdish militants and a network led by a US-based Turkish cleric who is accused of orchestrating the coup attempt.
The U.S. maintained that he was being held unjustly, and repeatedly called for his release.
The new hearing came at a time of a new but growing alignment between the U.S. and Turkey over the suspected murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who lived in America and who is feared to have been killed inside the Gulf kingdom’s Istanbul consulate.
Turkish police sources have leaked information to a number of news outlets that the Turkish government believes that the Saudi Arabian government ordered Khashoggi’s murder.
Some commentators have suggested that in order to procure America intervention – particularly against the Saudis, who Trump considers a firm ally ā Turkey should release all of its American hostages ā starting with Pastor Brunson.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters Thursday that the US was hopeful he will soon go free, but said she was unaware of any agreement for his release.
A car carrying Norine Brunson, wife of pastor Andrew Brunson, arrives at the Aliaga Prison and Courthouse complex in Izmir
Turkish security officials stand outside a courthouse before a convoy with US pastor Andrew Brunson sitting inside a car arrives for his trial in Izmir
Norine Brunson wife of American pastor Andrew Brunson, departs for her husband’s court hearing.Ā Brunson has been under house arrest in Izmir, Turkey while awaiting trial
President Trump has posted a number of tweets about Brunson’s case, demanding his release and threatening sanctions on Turkey
The pastor, who is originally from Black Mountain, North Carolina, was imprisoned for nearly two years ā detained in October 2016 and formally arrested in December that year ā before being placed under house arrest on July 25 for health reasons.
The court’s decision failed to improve tensions between the two NATO allies and Washington slapped sanctions on two Turkish officials and doubled tariff on Turkish steel and aluminum imports.
Those moves in August, coupled with concerns over the government’s economic management, helped trigger a Turkish currency crisis.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has resisted demands for Brunson’s release, insisting that the courts are independent.
But he had previously suggested a possible swap of Brunson and the Pennsylvania-resident Fethullah Gulen – the cleric accused of being behind the coup.
Turkish police officers stand near the residence of US pastor Andrew Brunson, who is being held under house arrest in Izmir
Official car of Charge d’Affaires of the U.S. Mission to Turkey Jeffrey M. Hovenier (not pictured) arrives to visit US pastor Andrew Brunson, who has been accused of abetting terrorist groups and supporting Fethullah Gulen, the cleric blamed for the failed coup attempt in 2016
A person involved in efforts to free Andrew Brunson say the 50-year-old pastor from North Carolina could be freed at his next court appearance on Friday. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because officials had not yet reached a final agreement on the release and it could still fall through
Brunson led a small congregation in the Izmir Resurrection Church. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom, with representatives monitoring the trial, has listed him as a ‘prisoner of conscience.’
William Devlin, an evangelical pastor from New York spoke to reporters outside the prison, saying hundreds of thousands of Christians are praying for Brunson’s release.
Brunson’s lawyer took the case to Turkey’s highest court last week seeking his release.
Story 2: Missing Journalist Presumed Killed By Saudi Government — Videos —
How the U.S. should respond to Jamal Khashoggiās disappearance
Turkey has video evidence of journalist’s killing in Saudi consulate, source says
What’s behind the Arab silence over Khashoggi fate? l Inside Story
Where is Jamal Khashoggi? Saudi Arabia denies abduction of missing journalist
Alleged Saudi Murder of Washington Post Columnist Prompts Calls to Halt U.S. Relations with Regime
Saudi Arabia’s missing princes – BBC Newsnight
How this young prince seized power in Saudi Arabia
‘He was interrogated, tortured and then murdered’: Arabic audio handed to the U.S. ‘proves Saudi critic WAS killed at consulate before 15-man assassination squad sneaked his body to consul general’s home’
The Washington Post reports journalist Jamal Khashoggi was beaten, killed and dismembered October 2 at the Saudi Arabia Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Audio recording reportedly lays out the story as voices are heard speaking Arabic but Turkish authorities are reluctant to release it
Sources believe the man who split his time between the US and Istanbul was victim of a plan to lure him to KSA for punishment after his critiques
John R. Bradley says Khashoggi ‘had dirt’ on Saudi ties to Osama bin Laden
He also says Crown Prince considered him a threat to his vision for the kingdomĀ
PUBLISHED:Ā 23:34 EDT, 11 October 2018Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 01:45 EDT, 12 October 2018
The government in Turkey claims to have evidence that US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi Arabia embassy after the critic of the country went to get a visa for his upcoming wedding.
He was captured on CCTV footage entering the building in Istanbul October 2 and a source has toldĀ The Washington PostĀ he was killed and then dismembered by members of security.
‘The voice recording from inside the embassy lays out what happened to Jamal after he entered,’ the insider told the newspaper that Khashoggi, 59, worked for.
‘You can hear his voice and the voices of men speaking Arabic ā¦ You can hear how he was interrogated, tortured and then murdered.’
The Washington Post reports journalist Jamal Khashoggi was beaten and killed October 2 at the Saudi Arabia Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
1.14pm: Jamal Khashoggi, right, at Saudi consulate in Istanbul
One of them, a Mercedes Vito, stops for several hours at Saudi consul general’s residence
On the move – 3.08pm: Vehicles with diplomatic plates leave the Istanbul consulate
The audio reportedly hold the key to the ‘gruesome’ goings on that day but the Post reports the Turkish officials have been reluctant to release the recording as it may give away how they spy on foreign entities that are based there.
Recordings allegedly are very ‘persuasive’ in revealing the journalist was ‘beaten’ before various other details that have been shared with American officials took place. It’s not clear if the US side has listened directly to the alleged evidence however.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia denied the claims something happened to the man – who has been known to critique KSA – inside the consulate and state he left unharmed.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has recently been promoted as the member of the royal family that has pushed forward for one of the strictest Middle Eastern countries to take a more liberal approach to culture.
Khashoggi wasn’t necessarily supportive of his vision however.
However, the Post reports that even before the journalist’s plan to go to Saudi, some people connected to the US government believed Salman was involved in a plan to lure him back.
Mr Khashoggi was critical of some of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (above) policies
One official said there was no evidence to support that claim which included speculation the team of 15 men in the consulate planned to take him to Saudi Arabia initially and didn’t arrive with the intention to kill him.
The Washington Post was told the audio reveals the team went to the home of the Saudi consul general after the incident and staff were instructed to go home earlier than usual.
It is believed a car discreetly took the body of Khashoggi out of the consulate and to the property two hours after he went in.
The report also refers to at least one phone call from inside the consulate worth noting.
President Donald Trump had commented on the disappearance but stands by his decision to sell arms to the kingdom. The US leader had shared if he didn’t make the sale the wealthy country would simply buy from Russia instead.
Democrat Senator BobĀ Corker believes that as more of the story unfolds Trump may regret his decision.
‘I shared with him before this happened, please do not push to have any arms sales brought up right now because they will not pass. It will not happen. With this, I can assure it won’t happen for a while,’ he added to reporter Wednesday.
The Saudi ambassador in the United States is expected to answer to officials in the country when he returns from a trip, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said at a media briefing.
She said: ‘We have said to him that we expect information upon his return to the United States.’
Saudi Arabia targeted Jamal Khashoggi (pictured) because he knew about the kingdom’s ties to al-Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11, former colleague John R. Bradley (right) has said
Further evidence that Mr Khashoggi never left the consulate include screen grabs from a WhatsApp chat showing he used his phone minutes before entering the building – and then never again
Mr Khashoggi had been living in self-imposed exile in the US since late 2017, fearing arrest back home.
John R. Bradley ā who is also a former colleague of Mr Khashoggi’s ā has revealed exactly why the kingdom wants him dead.
In an article called forĀ The Spectator, Bradley, who worked alongside Mr Khashoggi at Saudi daily Arab News, reveals Khashoggi ‘had dirt’ on the kingdom’s links to al-Qaeda before the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.Ā
Bradley believes the Saudis may have also worried that he had become a US asset.
Earlier this year, Mr Khashoggi had established a new political party in the US called Democracy for the Arab World.
But Mr Khashoggi’s recent rejection of the offer to return to Saudi Arabia as an advisor ā a snub to the Crown Prince – may have been the final straw.
Friends of Mr Khashoggi told the Washington Post that for several months, senior Saudi officials were offering him protection, ‘even a high-level job working for the government’ if the critic returned to the kingdom – but he was sceptical of such offers.
He was the most well-known political pundit in the Arab world with more than two million followers on Twitter.
In his columns, Bradley says, he urged Crown Prince Mohammed to embrace the rise of political Islam, rather than western-style democracy.
Last month, he criticized the Saudi war in Yemen, which is closely identified with Crown Prince Mohammed.
‘Saudi Arabia must face the damage from the past three-plus years of war in Yemen,’ he wrote in the Washington Post on September 11.
Hatice Cengiz, 36, who waited outside for hours for her fiance Khashoggi to return, has spoken of being left inĀ a ‘state of deep confusion and sadness’
Despite there being a number of visible CCTV cameras – ringed in red – Saudi Arabia claims none of them worked on the day in question
TIMELINE: WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN MR KHASHOGGI’S DISAPPEARANCE
OCTOBER 2
03:28: Gulf Stream IV private jet carrying suspected Saudi agents arrives at Istanbul airport.
05:05: The group checking into two hotels nearby to the Saudi consulate building.
12:13: Several diplomatic vehicles are filmed arriving at the consulate, allegedly carrying some of the Saudi agents.
18:20: One of the private jets departs from Istanbul airport.
21:00: The final plane leaves Istanbul.
OCTOBER 3
The Washington Post, for whom Khashoggi writes opinion pieces, raises the alarm, saying Khashoggi has not been seen since he entered the consulate.
OCTOBER 4
After an initial period of silence, Saudi Arabia says Khashoggi had disappeared ‘after he left the consulate building’.
*All times in Istanbul time.
On Thursday, the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee said sanctions would have to be imposed at the ‘highest levels’ of the Saudi government if it were found that the government was behind the disappearance and reported death of Mr Khashoggi.
It comesĀ as Turkish investigators prepared to enter the Saudi consulate in Istanbul where he was last seen.
‘If it turns out to be what we all think it is today but don’t know, there will have to be significant sanctions placed at the highest levels,’ Republican Senator Bob Corker told reporters at the US Capitol.
Corker added: ‘You canĀ“t go around killing journalists.’
Global pressure has mounted on Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, over the whereabouts of Mr Khashoggi, who entered the consulate to get documents for his planned marriage last week.
His Turkish fiancee, Hatice Cengiz, who was waiting outside, said he never re-appeared.
‘I have to find out what happened … and we’re probably getting closer than you might think,’ President Trump said in an interview on Fox & Friends.
She also shared her heart-break in an opinion piece for the Post.
‘We were in the middle of making wedding plans, life plans. After the consulate, we were going to buy appliances for our new home and set a date. All we needed was a piece of paper,’ she wrote.Ā ‘Jamal is a valuable person, an exemplary thinker and a courageous man who has been fighting for his principles. I donāt know how I can keep living if he was abducted or killed in Turkey.’
It comes as a witness claimed to have heard screams for help moments before Mr Khashoggi disappeared from the Saudi consulate.
The source, who was inside the consulate last Tuesday afternoon when Mr Khashoggi arrived to pick up official documents, has spoken to investigators.
They said they heard ‘sounds of loud screams and shouting, as well as calls for help and the sound of a struggle and then sudden silence,’ according toĀ Al Jazeera.
Further evidence that Mr Khashoggi never left the consulate emerged, as screenshots of his WhatsApp account shows he last used his mobile phone minutes before entering the building – when he was sent a link to a MailOnline article regarding a prominent Saudi.
The screenshots, obtained byĀ NBC News,Ā show the WhatsApp conversation between Mr Khashoggi and a US friend, which indicated that the last time he was active on his phone was at 1.06pm Istanbul time.
Just eight minutes later, at 1.14pm, he was caught on CCTV as he entered the Saudi Arabian consulate.
The friend sent a message to Mr Khashoggi at 1.24pm – a message which was received, but never read.
Investigators are confident they may be able to discover Mr Khashoggi’s fate, using data collected from his Apple Watch – which was connected to the phone he left with Ms Cengiz.
Britain warned Saudi Arabia of ‘serious consequences’ ifĀ it turns out Mr Khashoggi was murdered by his own people.
‘People who have long thought of themselves as Saudi’s friends are saying this is a very, very serious matter,’ Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan challenged Saudi Arabia to provide CCTV images to back up its version that Mr Khashoggi had left the consulate safely, indicating he did not find the current Saudi explanations sufficient.
‘It’s not possible for us [Turkey] to stay silent regarding an incident like this,’ Erdogan said.
‘Is it possible there were no camera systems in a consulate, in an embassy? Is it possible that there was no Saudi camera system where this incident took place?’
‘If a bird flew, or a fly or a mosquito appeared, the systems would capture this; they (Saudi Arabia) have the most cutting-edge systems,’ he was quoted as saying.
The identities of an alleged 15-member assassination squad surfaced.
The team is said to include a Saudi special forces officer, members of the royal guard and a senior forensics expert.
Police were seen entering the consulate this week but it is understood the Saudis rescinded an offer to allow forensic experts onto the premises after details of the Saudi identities emerged.
Riyadh has insisted Mr Khashoggi left the building alive and murder claims are ‘baseless’.
It says CCTV at the consulate were not working on the day in question.
Jamal Ahmad KhashoggiĀ (Arabic:Ā Ų¬Ł Ų§Ł Ų®Ų§Ų“ŁŲ¬ŁāĀ JamÄl KhÄshuqjÄ«,Ā Hejazi:Ā [ŹaĖmaĖl ĻaĖĖŹoÉ”Źi], born 1958[2]ā disappeared 2 October 2018) is a Saudi journalist,[3]Ā author, and the former general manager and editor-in-chief ofĀ Al-Arab News Channel.[4]Ā He also served as editor for Saudi newspaperĀ Al Watan, turning it into a platform for Saudi progressives.[5]
Khashoggi disappeared on 2 October 2018 and was last seen entering theĀ Saudi consulateĀ inĀ Istanbul, Turkey, by its main entrance.[8]Ā Anonymous Turkish police sources have alleged that he was murdered andĀ dismemberedinside the consulate.[9][10]Ā The Saudi government claims that Khashoggi left the consulate alive, through a rear entrance,[11]Ā but Turkish police say that no CCTV recorded him exiting the consulate.[12]Ā On 15 October, an inspection of the consulate by both Turkish and Saudi officials took place.
Early life and education
Khashoggi speaking in Washington, DC in March 2018
He received his elementary and secondary education in Saudi Arabia and obtained a bachelor’s degree in business administration fromĀ Indiana State UniversityĀ in the United States in 1982.[4][18][19]
Career
Jamal Khashoggi began his career as a regional manager for Tihama Bookstores from 1983 to 1984.[20]Ā Later he worked as a correspondent for theĀ Saudi GazetteĀ and as an assistant manager forĀ OkazĀ from 1985 to 1987.[20]Ā He continued his career as a reporter for various daily and weekly Arab newspapers from 1987 to 1990, includingĀ Al Sharq Al Awsat,Ā Al MajallaĀ andĀ Al Muslimoon.[4][20]Ā Khashoggi became managing editor and acting editor-in-chief ofĀ Al MadinaĀ in 1991 and his term lasted until 1999.[20]
From 1991 to 1999, he was a foreign correspondent in such countries asĀ Afghanistan,Ā Algeria,Ā Kuwait,Ā SudanĀ and in theĀ Middle East.[4]Ā It is also claimed that he served with bothĀ Saudi Intelligence AgencyĀ and possibly the United States in Afghanistan during this period.[21]Ā He then was appointed a deputy editor-in-chief ofĀ Arab News, the leading English newspaper of Saudi Arabia and served in the post from 1999 to 2003.[22]
Khashoggi became the editor-in-chief of the Saudi dailyĀ Al WatanĀ for a short period, less than two months, in 2003.[4][23]Ā [24][22]Ā He was fired in May 2003 by the Saudi ministry of information because he had allowed a columnist to criticize the Islamic scholarĀ Ibn TaymiyyaĀ (1263 – 1328), who is considered the founding father ofĀ WahhabismĀ ā a movement that theĀ Muslim BrotherhoodĀ has always been at odds with.[25]Ā This incident led to Khashoggi’s dubious reputation in the West as a liberal progressive.[26]
After he was fired, Khashoggi went toĀ LondonĀ in voluntary exile. There he joined the Al Faisal’s team as an adviser.[27]Ā He then served as a media aide to PrinceĀ Turki Al Faisal, while the latter was Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States.[28]Ā In April 2007, Khashoggi began to work as editor-in-chief inĀ Al WatanĀ for a second time.[22]
A column by poet Ibrahim al-Almaee challenging the basicĀ SalafiĀ premises was published inĀ Al WatanĀ in May 2010, which led to Khashoggi’s seemingly forced resignation, now for a second time, on 17 May 2010.[29]Ā Al WatanĀ announced that Khashoggi resigned as editor-in-chief “to focus on his personal projects”. However, it is thought that he was forced to resign due to official displeasure with articles published in the paper that were critical of the Kingdom’s harsh Islamic rules.[29]Ā After his second resignation from Al Watan in 2010 Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015 he launched the satellite news channelĀ Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia as the country does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by of Saudi billionaire PrinceĀ Alwaleed bin TalalĀ and partnered with US financial news channelĀ Bloomberg Television. But the channel was on air for less than 11 hours before it was shut down by Bahrain.[30][31]Ā He was also a political commentator for Saudi and international channels, includingĀ MBC,Ā BBC,Ā Al JazeeraĀ andĀ Dubai TV.[20]Ā Between June 2012 and September 2016, his opinion columns were regularly published byĀ Al Arabiya.[32]
Citing a report fromĀ Middle East Eye,Ā The IndependentĀ said in December 2016 that Khashoggi had been banned by Saudi Arabian authorities from publishing or appearing on television “for criticising US President-electĀ Donald Trump“.[33]
Kashoggi criticized the arrest (in May 2018) of women’s rights activistĀ Loujain al-Hathloul
Speaking to the BBCāsĀ Newshour, Khashoggi criticizedĀ Israel‘sĀ settlement buildingĀ in the occupiedĀ Palestinian territories, saying: “There was no international pressure on the Israelis and therefore the Israelis got away with building settlements, demolishing homes.”[39]
According toĀ The Spectator, “With almost two millionĀ TwitterĀ followers, he was the most famous political pundit in the Arab world and a regular guest on the major TV news networks in Britain and the United States.”[26]Ā In 2018, Khashoggi established a newĀ political partyĀ calledĀ Democracy for the Arab World Now, posing a political threat to Crown Prince Mohammed.[26]Ā He wrote in aĀ PostĀ column on 3 April 2018 that Saudi Arabia “should return to itsĀ pre-1979 climate, when the government restricted hard-line Wahhabi traditions. Women today should have the same rights as men. And all citizens should have the right to speak their minds without fear of imprisonment.”[36]
Interviews with Osama bin Laden
Khashoggi befriendedĀ Osama bin LadenĀ in the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan and Sudan while championing hisĀ jihad against the SovietsĀ in dispatches. At that same time, he was employed by the Saudi intelligence services to try to persuade bin Laden to make peace with theĀ Saudi royal family. Khashoggi interviewed bin Laden several times. He also met bin Laden inĀ Tora Bora, and once more inĀ SudanĀ in 1995.[40]
It is reported that Khashoggi once tried to persuade bin Laden to quit violence.[41]Ā Khashoggi was the only non-royal Saudi who knew of the royalsā intimate dealing withĀ al QaedaĀ in the lead-up to theĀ 9/11 terror attacks. He dissociated himself from bin Laden following the attacks.[26]
According to numerous anonymous police sources, the Turkish police believe that Khashoggi was tortured and killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul[49][50]Ā by a 15-member team brought in from Saudi Arabia for the operation.[51][52]Ā One anonymous police source claimed that the dead body was chopped to pieces and quietly moved out of the consulate, and all of this was “videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country”.[50]
Turkish authorities have claimed that security camera footage of the day of the incident was removed from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, and that Turkish consulate staff were abruptly told to take a holiday on the day Khashoggi disappeared while inside the building.[53]Turkish police investigators told the media that the recordings from the security cameras did not show any evidence of Khashoggi leaving the consulate.[54]Ā A security camera was located outside the consulate’s front which had showed him entering but not leaving, while another camera installed at a preschool opposite of the rear entrance of the consulate also did not show him leaving.[54]
On 7 October, Turkish officials pledged to release evidence showing that Khashoggi was killed.[52]Ā Yasin Aktay, an adviser to the Turkish president, initially said he believed Khashoggi had been killed in the consulate,[50]Ā but on 10 October he claimed āthe Saudi state is not blamed hereā, something theĀ GuardianĀ journalist sees as Turkey trying not to harm lucrative trade ties and a delicate regional relationship with Saudi Arabia.[53]Ā Turkey then claimed to have direct audio and video evidence of the killing occuring inside the consulate.[55]
Al-WaqtĀ news quoted informed sources as saying thatĀ Mohammad bin SalmanĀ had assignedĀ Ahmad Asiri, the deputy head of theĀ Al-Mukhabarat Al-A’amah[56]Ā and the former spokesman for theĀ Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, with the mission to execute Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Another military officer with lots of experience in dealing with dissidents was the second candidate for the mission.[57]Ā On the same day, Turkish media close to the president published images of what it described as a 15-member “assassination squad” allegedly sent to kill Khashoggi, and of a black van later traveling from the Saudi consulate to the consulās home.[58]
Former US ambassador to Saudi ArabiaĀ Robert JordanĀ said on 12 October that he is 95 percent certain that Saudi Arabia killed Jamal Khashoggi.[60]
Analysts have suggested that Khashoggi might have been considered especially dangerous by the Saudi leadership because he was not a long-time dissident, but rather a pillar of the Saudi establishment who was close to its ruling circles for decades, had worked as an editor at Saudi news outlets and had been an adviser to a former Saudi intelligence chief.[61]
Reactions
Saudi Arabia’s Crown PrinceĀ Mohammad bin SalmanĀ claimed Khashoggi left the consulate shortly after the visit.[62]Ā The English-languageĀ Arab NewsĀ on 10 October 2018 reported that the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., PrinceĀ Khalid bin Salman, “condemns āmalicious leaks and grim rumorsā surrounding Khashoggi disappearance” and that “the reports that suggest that Jamal Khashoggi went missing in the Consulate in Istanbul or that the Kingdom’s authorities have detained him or killed him are absolutely false, and baseless”.[63][64]Saudi Arabia threatened to retaliate “if it is [targeted by] any action”.[65]Ā Al Arabiya, the Saudi-owned pan-Arab televison based inĀ Dubai, claimed that reports of Khashoggiās disappearance inside the Saudi consulate have been pushed byĀ Qatar. According to the Saudi Arabian daily newspaperĀ Okaz, Qatar has a “50 percent ownership of theĀ PostĀ and has influence over its editorial direction.” Saudi Arabian daily newspaperĀ Al YaumĀ has claimed that members of the death squad were in fact tourists.[66]
Turkish presidentĀ ErdoÄanĀ demanded that Saudi government provide proof for their claims that Khashoggi left the consulate alive, something that Turkish police CCTV did not capture.[67]
U.S. Secretary of StateĀ Mike PompeoĀ called on Saudi Arabia “to support a thorough investigation of Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and to be transparent about the results of that investigation.”[68]Ā PresidentĀ TrumpĀ expressed concern about the fate of Khashoggi.[69]Ā U.S. SenatorĀ Chris MurphyĀ wrote that if the reports of Khashoggi’s murder are true, “it should represent a fundamental break” inĀ Saudi ArabiaāUnited States relations.[70]Ā Murphy also called for at least a temporary halt in U.S. military support for theĀ Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.[71]
U.S. SenatorĀ Rand PaulĀ said that he would attempt to force a vote on blocking the futureĀ U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia.[73]Ā SenatorĀ Bob Corker, the chair of theĀ Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Trump over Khashoggiās disappearance. Signed by the entire Committee other than Senator Paul who prepared his own letter, it “instructs the administration to determine whether Khashoggi was indeed kidnapped, tortured, or murdered by the Saudi government and, as theĀ Global Magnitsky ActĀ requires, to respond within 120 days with a determination of sanctions against individuals who may have been responsible.”[64]Ā U.S. SenatorĀ Bernie SandersĀ said that “it seems clear that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman feels emboldened by the Trump administrationās unquestioning support.”[64]Ā President Trump told journalists: “I know [Senators] are talking about different kinds of sanctions, but [the Saudis] are spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs for this country.”[74]Ā Trump, in responding specifically to the Senate’s attempt to block the Saudi arms deal, stated that the blocking of such a deal “would not be acceptable to me.”[75]Ā While opposing trade sanctions, Trump remained open to the possibility of other forms of what he described as the “severe punishment” of Saudi Arabia.[65]
TheĀ Washington PostĀ reported on 9 October that “US intelligenceĀ intercepted communications of Saudi officials discussing a plan to capture” Khashoggi. It was not clear whether the Saudis intended to arrest and interrogate Khashoggi or to kill him, or if the US warned Khashoggi that he was a target.[78]Ā The intercepted communication is deemed important because Khashoggi is aĀ legal resident of the United States, and is therefore entitled to protection. According to NSA officials, this threat warning was communicated to theĀ White HouseĀ through official intelligence channels.[79]
According toĀ Rami George Khouri, a professor of journalism at theĀ American University of Beirut, “The case of Jamal Khashoggi, unfortunately, is only the tip of the iceberg…it would only be the most dramatic example of a trend that has been ongoing for at least 30 to 40 years, but which has escalated under [Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman],”[84].
Al-Jazeera reported on 13 October that “theĀ Arab worldĀ stays silent…there’s been no official reaction from any Arab government, and hardly any condemnation from Arab media.”[85]
On the evening of 14 October, President ErdoÄan and King Salman announced that a deal had been made for a “jointing working group” to examine the case.[86]Ā On 15 October the Turkish Foreign Ministry announced that an “inspection” of the consulate, by both Turkish and Saudi officials, would take place that afternoon.[87][88]Ā On the same day, after speaking to the Saudi king by phone, President Trump said that Salman ādenies any knowledge of whatever may have happened… The denial was very, very strong, It sounded to me like maybe these could have been rogue killers. Who knows?ā[86]
Story 3: Major Security Breach at Facebook With — Facebook Changes The Lock — Videos —
Facebook says hackers accessed data of 29M users
Facebook Purges Accounts of Hundreds for Absolutely No Explicable or Cogent Reason
Former hacker weighs in on Facebook’s big security breach
Facebook security breach: How to know if you got hacked
Facebook security breach affects tens of millions of accounts
Facebook confirms 50m accounts were hacked
Real Future: What Happens When You Dare Expert Hackers To Hack You (Episode 8)
Hackers Reveal How They Make Money Breaking Into Companies | Inc.
21st Century Hackers – Documentary 2018
Inside Russiaās Hacker Underworld
10 Greatest Hackers Of All Time
How to Know If Your Facebook Account Has Been Hacked
How to Know If Your Facebook Account Has Been HackedFor the second time this year, hackers have attacked millions of Facebook accounts. The social network announcedĀ last week that about 50 million users were recently hacked.
The hacking occurred because of a flaw in Facebookās āView Asā feature, which allows you to see your profile as others do.Ā Users can type in a personās name to get an understanding of what can be seen when a particular person is viewing their page.
This feature has been susceptible to attack since an update that occurred in July 2017.
Affected access tokens, which are like digital keys that allow a person to access their account without having to log in each time, were reset, forcing 50 million users plus an additional 40 million users to manually log back into their accounts. So if you were automatically logged out on all of your devices on the morning of Friday, Sept. 28, then thereās reason to believe your account was susceptible to the vulnerability.
Facebook said it did this as a precautionary step, logging out anyone who used the āView Asā feature whether their account was actually affected or not. Users who were logged out do not need to change their password to be protected. The rightful owners of affected accounts will be able to log in with their current username and password.
Currently, the āView Asā feature is not available while Facebook works to rectify the problem, those who try to use this feature should see an error message.
When Facebook announced the attack on its blog last Friday, it said affected users would receive a notification at the top of their News Feed when logging back into their account explaining what happened and what steps to take moving forward.
If you received this notification, you can select āLearn Moreā to get an understanding of how this breach will affect you. If you did not receive a notification at the top of your News Feed, your account was probably not affected by this security issue.
If you want to be extra safe, go to SettingsāĀ Security and LogināĀ Where Youāre Logged In to see if there are any unfamiliar devices attached to your account.
Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company isnāt sure about the source of the attack; nor is it clear if this breach led to usersā information being stolen or misused. The investigation is ongoing and those affected will be updated accordingly as the tech company learns more about the hack and the motives behind it.
The full extent of the breach is not known, but the company has alerted law enforcement and is working with the FBI to get to the bottom of the issue.
Hackers accessed personal information of 30 million Facebook users
Almost 30 million Facebook users’ phone numbers and email addresses were accessed by hackers in the biggest security breach in the company’s history, Facebook said Friday. The attackers accessed even more details on 14 million of those users, including the area where they live, their relationship status, their religion, and part of their search history.
The FBI is “actively investigating” the breach, Guy Rosen, a Facebook vice-president, told reporters on a call Friday. He said the FBI has asked the company”not to discuss who may be behind this attack” or to share other details that could compromise its investigation.
The company said that it may still not know the full extent of the attack and wasn’t ruling out the possibility of other “smaller-scale attacks” linked to the breach. The company said it will continue to investigate “other ways the people behind this attack used Facebook.”
The new details come two weeks afterĀ Facebook first announcedĀ that attackers had access to 50 million users’ accounts — meaning they could have logged in as those users. Facebook said on Friday that, “We now know that fewer people were impacted than we originally thought,” and said that 30 million people had been impacted.
For the 14 million worst hit by the breach, the attackers were able to access the following information, Facebook said: “username, gender, locale/language, relationship status, religion, hometown, self-reported current city, birthdate, device types used to access Facebook, education, work, the last 10 places they checked into or were tagged in, website, people or Pages they follow, and the 15 most recent searches.”
Facebook said it will send a message to the 30 million users affected in the coming days and will be posting information to itsĀ help center.
Facebook is regulated by Irish authorities in Europe as its European headquarters is located there. A spokesperson for the Irish data regulator said of Friday’s announcement, “The update from Facebook today is significant now that Facebook has confirmed that the personal data of millions of users was taken by the perpetrators of the attack.”
The attack prompted Facebook to take the unprecedented step of logging out the 50 million users whose accounts were exposed and logged out another 40 million users as a precautionary measure.
The attackers exploited a series of bugs on Facebook’s platform. The vulnerability, Facebook said, had existed since July 2017. It wasn’t patched until last month, after the company’s engineers noticed some unusual activity that turned out to be the attack.
Despite Friday’s announcement, there areĀ still many detailsĀ about the hack that have not been made public, including who was behind it and if the attackers were targeting particular users or countries.
Was I hacked?
To find out if you are among the 30 million people whose information was accessed, you can click here toĀ go to the Facebook help center.Ā You need to be logged into Facebook. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you’ll find details about your account in a blue box titled, “Is my Facebook account impacted by this security issue?”
If you’re among those who were worst affected by the Facebook hack this is what you will see when you go to this link to check if your account was breached (you need to be logged into Facebook for this to work) https://www.facebook.com/help/securitynotice?ref=secĀ ā¦
Facebook Hack Included Search History and Location Data of Millions
ByĀ Mike Isaac
SAN FRANCISCO ā Facebook said Friday that anĀ attack on its computer systemsĀ that was announced two weeks ago had affected 30 million users, about 20 million fewer than it estimated earlier.
But the personal information that was exposed was far more intimate than originally thought, adding to Facebookās challenges as it investigates what was probably the most substantial breach of its network in the companyās 14-year history.
Detailed information was stolen from the Facebook profiles of about 14 million of the 30 million users. The data was as specific as the last 15 people or things they had searched for on Facebook and the last 10 physical locations they had āchecked into.ā
Other personal details were also exposed, like gender, religious affiliation, telephone number, email addresses and the types of computing devices used to reach Facebook.
Usersā names and contact information like telephone numbers were stolen from an additional 15 million profiles, Facebook said. The security tokens of about one million other people were stolen, but hackers did not get their profile information, the company said.
The hackers did not gain access to account passwords or credit card information, Facebook said.
āWe have been working around the clock to investigate the security issue we discovered and fixed two weeks ago so we can help people understand what information the attackers may have accessed,ā Guy Rosen, vice president of product management, wrote in aĀ blog postĀ on Friday.
While Facebook has cautioned that the attack was not as large as it had originally anticipated ā it forced 90 million users to log out so the security of their profiles would reset ā the details of what was stolen worried security experts. The data can be used for all sorts of schemes by sophisticated hackers.
āHackers have some sort of a goal,ā said Oren J. Falkowitz, chief executive of the cybersecurity company Area 1 Security and a former National Security Agency official. āItās not that their motivation is to attack Facebook, but to use Facebook as a lily pad to conduct other attacks.ā
An attacker may use that information to conduct sophisticated āphishing attacks,ā a method used to get into financial accounts, health records or other important personal databases, Mr. Falkowitz said.
āOnce youāve become a target, it never ends,ā he said.
The breach was disclosed at the worst possible time for Facebook, which is grappling with a series of crises that have shaken user trust in the worldās largest social network.
Over the last year, Facebook has faced repeated criticism that it hasnāt been doing enough to protect the personal information of its more than two billion regular users.
In March, Facebook was hit by revelations that Cambridge Analytica, a British consulting firm that had worked for the Trump campaign, had gained access to the private information of up toĀ 87 millionĀ users.
The company is also dealing with concerns that disinformation on its platforms has affected elections and has even led to deaths in several countries. On Thursday, Facebook disclosed that it hadĀ removed hundreds of accounts and pagesĀ used to spread disinformation in the United States. While Russian agents had used Facebook and other social media to incite conflict before the 2016 election, domestic sources of false or misleading posts have jumped into the fray, the company said.
Disinformation has had dire results outside the United States. In Sri Lanka, Myanmar and other countries, hundreds of people have been killed, partly because of the rampant spread of misinformation across social networks and other internet sites.
Former employees have also taken to criticizing Facebook. Brian Acton, a co-founder of the Facebook-owned smartphone application WhatsApp, has called for people to delete their Facebook accounts.
The breach could affect usersā willingness to use Facebook products. On Monday,Ā Facebook debuted Portal, the companyās first hardware device built from the ground up, for high-definition video calls. The product asks users to install a camera in their living rooms.
Facebook first found hints of suspicious activity across its network in early September when security engineers noticed a flurry of activity around the āView Asā feature, a way for users to check on what information other people can see about them. It was built to give users move control over their privacy.
More than a week later, Facebook determined that the activity was an attack on its systems, focused on three interconnected vulnerabilities in the companyās software.
Those flaws were compounded by a bug in Facebookās video-uploading program for birthday celebrations, a software feature that was introduced in July 2017. The flaw allowed the attackers to steal so-called access tokens ā digital keys that allow access to an account.
Facebook fixed the bugs and alerted users on Sept. 28 that the accounts of about 50 million users had been compromised.
In the days since, Facebook has scrambled to figure out how things went wrong, who could be responsible for the attack and what the attackers planned to do with the information.
In a conference call with reporters on Friday, Mr. Rosen declined to answer who might be responsible for the attack or how the information could be used.
Facebook engineers are working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the hack. F.B.I. officials have asked Facebook not to share details on the suspected identities of the attackers for fear of compromising the investigation.
Videos — Story 4: President Trump Celebrates Columbus Day? — Happy Columbus Day — Videos
WATCH: President Trump SLAMS Elizabeth Warren Over Her 1/1024 Native American Background
Elizabeth Warren refuses to celebrate Columbus Day
Goodbye, Columbus Day
Why the US celebrates Columbus Day
Best Highlights Columbus Day Parade 2018 – New York City
President Trump Overturns Obama-Era Columbus Day Statement – It Will ENRAGE The Left
Celebration of Christopher Columbus’s voyage in theĀ early United StatesĀ is recorded from as early as 1792, when theĀ Tammany SocietyĀ in New York City[3]Ā (for whom it became an annual tradition)[4][5]Ā and also theĀ Massachusetts Historical SocietyĀ in Boston celebrated the 300th anniversary of Columbus’Ā landingĀ in theĀ New World.[6][7]Ā PresidentĀ Benjamin HarrisonĀ called upon the people of theĀ United StatesĀ to celebrate Columbus’s landing in the New World on the 400th anniversary of the event. During the anniversary in 1892, teachers, preachers, poets and politicians used rituals to teach ideals of patriotism. These rituals took themes such as citizenship boundaries, the importance of loyalty to the nation, and the celebration ofĀ social progress.[8][9][10]
ManyĀ Italian-AmericansĀ observe Columbus Day as a celebration of their heritage, and the first such celebration was held in New York City on October 12, 1866.[11]Ā The day was first enshrined as a legal holiday in the United States through the lobbying of Angelo Noce, a first generation Italian, in Denver. The first statewide holiday was proclaimed by Colorado governor Jesse F. McDonald in 1905, and it was made a statutory holiday in 1907.[12]Ā In April 1934, as a result of lobbying by theĀ Knights of ColumbusĀ and New York City Italian leaderĀ Generoso Pope, Congress and PresidentĀ Franklin Delano RooseveltĀ proclaimed October 12 aĀ federal holidayĀ under the name Columbus Day.[12][13][14]
Since 1971 (Oct. 11), the holiday has been fixed to the second Monday in October,[15]Ā coincidentally exactly the same day asĀ ThanksgivingĀ in neighboring Canada fixed since 1957. It is generally observed nowadays by banks, the bond market, theĀ U.S. Postal Service, other federal agencies, most state government offices, many businesses, and most school districts. Some businesses and some stock exchanges remain open, and some states and municipalities abstain from observing the holiday.[16]Ā The traditional date of the holiday also adjoins the anniversary of theĀ United States NavyĀ (founded October 13, 1775), and thus both occasions are customarily observed by the Navy (and usually theĀ Marine CorpsĀ as well) with either a 72- or 96-hour liberty period.[citation needed]
Actual observance varies in different parts of the United States, ranging from large-scale parades and events to complete non-observance. Most states celebrate Columbus Day as an official state holiday, though many mark it as a “Day of Observance” or “Recognition” and at least four do not recognize it at all. Most states that celebrate Columbus Day will close state services, while others operate as normal.[17]
San Francisco claims the nation’s oldest continuously existing celebration with the Italian-American community’s annual Columbus Day Parade, which was established by Nicola Larco in 1868,[18]Ā while New York City boasts the largest, with over 35,000 marchers and one million viewers.[19][20][21]
VirginiaĀ also celebrates two legal holidays on the day, Columbus Day and Yorktown Victory Day, which honors the final victory at theĀ Siege of YorktownĀ in theĀ Revolutionary War.[23]
IowaĀ andĀ NevadaĀ do not celebrate Columbus Day as an official holiday, but the states’ respective governors are “authorized and requested” by statute to proclaim the day each year.[32]Ā Several states have removed the day as a paid holiday for state government workers, while still maintaining itāeither as a day of recognition, or as a legal holiday for other purposes, includingĀ CaliforniaandĀ Texas.[33][34][35][36][37]
Argentine government poster from 1947 including the concept of la Raza.
The date Columbus arrived in the Americas is celebrated in some countries of Latin America. The most common name for the celebration in Spanish (including some Latin American communities[48]Ā in the United States) is theĀ DĆa de la RazaĀ (“day of the race” or the “day of the [Hispanic] people”), commemorating the first encounters ofĀ EuropeansĀ and theĀ Native Americans. The day was first celebrated in Argentina in 1917, in Venezuela and Colombia in 1921, inĀ ChileĀ in 1922 and inĀ MexicoĀ it was first celebrated in 1928. The day was also celebrated under this title in Spain until 1957, when it was changed to theĀ DĆa de la HispanidadĀ (“Hispanicity Day”), and in Venezuela it was celebrated under this title until 2002, when it was changed to theĀ DĆa de la Resistencia IndĆgenaĀ (Day of Indigenous Resistance). Originally conceived of as a celebration of Hispanic influence in the Americas, as evidenced by the complementary celebrations in Spain and Latin America, DĆa de la Raza has come to be seen by nationalist activists throughout Latin America as a counter to Columbus Day; a celebration of the native races and cultures and their resistance to the arrival of Europeans in the Americas.[citation needed]
In the United States, DĆa de la Raza has served as a time of mobilization for pan-ethnicĀ LatinoĀ activists, particularly since the 1960s. Since then, La Raza has served as a periodic rallying cry for Hispanic activists. The first Hispanic March on Washington occurred on Columbus Day in 1996. The name is still used by the largest Hispanic social justice organization in the nation, theĀ National Council of La Raza.[8]
Argentina
The Day of the Race was established inĀ ArgentinaĀ in 1916 by a decree of PresidentĀ HipĆ³lito Yrigoyen. The name was changed to “Day of Respect of Cultural Diversity” by a Decree of Necessity and Urgency 1584/2010 issued by PresidentĀ Cristina Kirchner. Under the likely influence of the Venezuelan government, the statue of Columbus was removed from its original position near theĀ Casa RosadaĀ and replaced by one ofĀ Juana Azurduy.
Colombia
Colombia, the only country in the world with a name originated from Columbus himself, celebratesĀ El dĆa de la Raza y de la HispanidadĀ and is taken as an opportunity to celebrate the encounter of “the two worlds” and to reflect on the richness that the racial diversity has brought to the culture.
Venezuela
Current state (June 6, 2006) of the Columbus Walk in Caracas. The statue was knocked down by activists after a “public trial” during the celebrations of the newly instituted “Day of the Indigenous Resistance” (October 12) in 2004.[49]
Between 1921 and 2002,Ā VenezuelaĀ celebratedĀ DĆa de la RazaĀ along with many other Latin American nations. The original holiday was officially established in 1921 under PresidentĀ Juan Vicente GĆ³mez. In 2002, under PresidentĀ Hugo ChĆ”vez, the holiday was changed toĀ DĆa de la Resistencia IndĆgenaĀ (Day of Indigenous Resistance) to commemorate theĀ IndigenousĀ peoples’ resistance to European settlement. On October 12, 2004, a crowd of pro-government activists toppled the statue of Christopher Columbus inĀ CaracasĀ and sprayed allusiveĀ graffitiĀ over its pedestal. The pro-ChĆ”vez website Aporrea wrote: “Just like the statue ofĀ SaddamĀ inĀ Baghdad, that of Columbus the tyrant also fell this October 12, 2004 in Caracas”.[50]Ā The famousĀ toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statueĀ had occurred the previous year.
Costa Rica
On September 21, 1994,Ā Costa RicaĀ changed the official holiday fromĀ DĆa de la RazaĀ toĀ DĆa del Encuentro de las CulturasĀ (Day of the Encounter of Cultures) to recognize the mix of European, Native American (autochthonous populations),Ā AfricanĀ andĀ AsianĀ cultures that constitute modern Costa Rican (andĀ Latin American) culture and ethnicity. In accordance to the Costa Rican labor law, the holiday is observed on October 12. However, should this date coincide with a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, the employer shall agree that said holiday be postponed to the following Monday.Ā [51]
Brazil
InĀ Brazil, Columbus Day is not celebrated. Instead, the country celebrates the arrival on the coast of present-day Brazil of the fleet led by Portuguese explorerĀ Pedro Ćlvares CabralĀ on April 22, 1500. This date is known in Brazil as “O Descobrimento do Brasil” (The Discovery of Brazil). The date began to be celebrated after the country’s independence from Portugal, when Brazilian EmperorĀ Pedro IIĀ instituted the dateĀ as part of a plan to foster a sense of nationalism among Brazil’s diverse citizenryāgiving them a common identity and history as residents of a uniqueĀ Portuguese-speakingĀ empire surrounded byĀ Hispanic Republics of the Americas.Ā [52]Ā The Discovery of Brazil was originally celebrated on May 3, but scholars in the nineteen century foundĀ definitive evidenceĀ proving April 22 to be the actual date of the arrival of Cabral’s fleet on South American shores.Ā [53]Ā In 2000, the government of Brazil used the date to celebrate 500 years of the existence of the country. The festivities, however, were met with protests by indigenous peoples who claimed it marked 500 years of genocide ofĀ indigenous Brazilians.[54]Ā [55]
Since the 18th century, many Italian communities in the Americas have observed theĀ Discovery of the New WorldĀ as a celebration of their heritage;Ā Christopher ColumbusĀ (whose original, Italian name is “Cristoforo Colombo”) was an Italian explorer, citizen of theĀ Republic of Genoa.[11]
In Italy, Columbus Day has been officially celebrated since 2004.[2]Ā It is officially namedĀ Giornata nazionale di Cristoforo Colombo.
The “Lega Navale Italiana” has created aĀ Regata di ColomboĀ as a celebration of the Columbus achievement.[59]Ā Italians have celebrated their “Cristoforo Colombo” naming after him many civilian and military ships, like the ocean linerĀ SSĀ Cristoforo Colombo.
Since 1987, Spain has celebrated the anniversary of Columbus’s arrival in the Americas as itsĀ Fiesta NacionalĀ or “National Day”.[60]Ā Previously Spain had celebrated the day asĀ DĆa de la Hispanidad, emphasizing Spain’s ties with theĀ Hispanidad, the international Hispanic community.[60]Ā In 1981 a royal decree established theĀ DĆa de la HispanidadĀ as a national holiday.[60]Ā However, in 1987 the name was changed toĀ Fiesta Nacional, and October 12 became one of two national celebrations, along withĀ Constitution DayĀ on December 6.[61]Ā Spain’s “national day” had moved around several times during the various regime changes of the 20th century; establishing it on the day of the international Columbus celebration was part of a compromise between conservatives, who wanted to emphasize the status of the monarchy and Spain’s history, and Republicans, who wanted to commemorate Spain’s burgeoning democracy with an official holiday.[61]Ā Since 2000, October 12 has also been Spain’sĀ Day of the Armed Forces, celebrated each year with a military parade inĀ Madrid.[61]Ā Other than this, however, the holiday is not widely or enthusiastically celebrated in Spain; there are no other large-scale patriotic parades, marches, or other events, and the observation is generally overshadowed by theĀ feast dayĀ ofĀ Our Lady of the PillarĀ (Fiestas del Pilar).[61]
Opposition to Columbus Day dates back to at least the 19th century, when anti-immigrant nativists (seeĀ Know Nothings) sought to eliminate its celebration because of its association withĀ immigrantsĀ from theĀ CatholicĀ countries of Ireland and Italy, and the American Catholic fraternal organization, theĀ Knights of Columbus.[62]Ā SomeĀ anti-Catholics, notably including theĀ Ku Klux KlanĀ and theĀ Women of the Ku Klux Klan, opposed celebrations of Columbus or monuments about him because they thought that it increased Catholic influence in the United States, which was largely a Protestant country.[62]
By far the more common opposition today, decrying both Columbus’ and other Europeans’ actions against the indigenous populations of the Americas, did not gain much traction until the latter half of the 20th century. This opposition was led by Native Americans and expanded upon byĀ left-wingĀ political parties,[63][64][65][66][67]Ā though it has become more mainstream.[68]Ā Surveys conducted in 2013 and 2015 found 26% to 38% of American adults not in favor of celebrating Columbus Day.[69][70]
There are many interrelated strands of criticism. One refers primarily to the treatment of theĀ indigenous populationsĀ during theĀ European colonization of the AmericasĀ which followed Columbus’sĀ discovery. Some groups, such as theĀ American Indian Movement, have argued that the ongoing actions and injustices against Native Americans are masked by Columbus myths and celebrations.[71]Ā AmericanĀ anthropologistĀ Jack WeatherfordĀ says that on Columbus Day, Americans celebrate the greatest waves of genocide of the American Indians known inĀ history.[72]
A second strain of criticism of Columbus Day focuses on the character of Columbus himself. In time for the 2004 observation of the day, the final volume of a compendium of Columbus-era documents was published by theĀ University of California, Los Angeles‘s Medieval and Renaissance Center. It stated that Columbus, while a brilliant mariner, exploited and enslaved the indigenous population.[73]
Spelman College historianĀ Howard ZinnĀ described some of the details of how Columbus personally ordered the enslavement and mutilation of the nativeĀ ArawakĀ people in a bid to repay his investors.[74]
In the summer of 1990, 350 representatives from American Indian groups from all over the hemisphere, met inĀ Quito, Ecuador, at the firstĀ Intercontinental Gathering of Indigenous People in the Americas, to mobilize against the 500th anniversary (quin-centennial) celebration of Columbus Day planned for 1992. The following summer, inĀ Davis, California, more than a hundred Native Americans gathered for a follow-up meeting to the Quito conference. They declared October 12, 1992 to be “International Day of Solidarity with Indigenous People.”[76]
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
The Pronk Pops Show 1346, October 28, 2019, Story 1: United States Military Special Operators Force Suicide of ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — Videos — Story 2: Democrats Still Pushing Impeachment Despite No Evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors — Videos — Story 3: Joe Biden The Marathon Man For President — Videos
Posted on October 30, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Abortion, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Amy Klobuchar, Barack H. Obama, Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corey Booker, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Elizabeth Warren, Empires, Employment, Energy, Environment, European History, European Union, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Genocide, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Israel, James Comey, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, Middle East, Mike Pence, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, National Interest, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Networking, News, Nuclear, Oil, Oil, People, Pete Buttigieg, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Privacy, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Corruption, Public Relations, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Saudi Arabia, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Social Science, Spying, Spying on American People, Subversion, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: 27 October 2019, Al-Baghdadi. Terrorism, America, Articles, Audio, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Democrat Race for Presidential Nomination, Democrats Still Pushing Impeachment Despite No Evidence Of High Crimes And Misdemeanors, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, Front Runner, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Impeachment inquiry Cover-up, Individualism, ISIS, Islamic State, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, Polls, President Donald J. Trump, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, S;pygate, Show Notes, Talk Radio, Terrorist, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1346, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States Military Special Operators Force Suicide of ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1346 October 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1345 October 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1344 October 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1343 October 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1342 October 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1341 October 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1340 October 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1339 October 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1338 October 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1337 October 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1336 October 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1335 October 7, 2019
Ā Pronk Pops Show 1334 October 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1333 October 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1332 October 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1331 October 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1330 September 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1329 September 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1328 September 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1327 September 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1326 September 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1325 September 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1324 September 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1323 September 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1322 September 18 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1321 September 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1320 September 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1319 September 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1318 September 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1317 September 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1316 September 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1315 September 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1314 September 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1313 August 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1312 August 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1311 August 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1310 August 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1309 August 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1308 August 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1307 August 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1306 August 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1305 August 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1304 August 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1303 August 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1302 August 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1301 August 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1300 August 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1299 July 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1298 July 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1297 July 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1296 July 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1295 July 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1294 July 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1293 July 22, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1292 July 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1291 July 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1290 July 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1289 July 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1288 July 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1287 July 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1286 July 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1285 July 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1284 July 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1283 July 1, 2019
Story 1: United States Military Special Operators Force Suicide of ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — Videos ––
President Trump Announces ISIS Leader Killed in US Military Raid
President Donald Trump announces the death of Islamic State Leader al-Baghdadi
Trump confirms death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Mike Pompeo goes inside the mission that killed al-Baghdadi
‘It was a brilliantly executed operation’: Defense secretary on al-Baghdadi raid | ABC News
‘He died like a dog’ Trump addresses the nation and says ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi died ‘whimpering and crying and screaming’
ByĀ KATELYN CARALLE, U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED:Ā 09:30 EDT, 27 October 2019Ā |Ā UPDATED:Ā 10:49 EDT, 28 October 2019
Donald TrumpĀ announced Sunday morning thatĀ ISISĀ leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ‘died like a dog’ as the result of a U.S. Special Ops forces raid on his hideout in northwestĀ Syria.
‘Last night the United State brought the world’s number one terrorist leader to justice. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead,’ Trump said from the Diplomatic Reception Room, where just a week earlier he announced a ceasefire between Turkey and the Kurds.
‘He was the founder and leader of ISIS, the most ruthless and violent terror organization anywhere in the world,’ he continued as he described the events of the raid.
Al-Baghdadi, the president confirmed, detonated his suicide vest, killing himself and three children, during an overnight targeted attack in Syria’s Idlib province.
The president touted the operation and al-Baghdadi’s death as ‘bigger than bin Laden.’ Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda and the terrorist leader behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, was killed in 2011 during a Navy SEALs operation during Barack Obama’s presidency.
‘This is the biggest there is. This is the worst ever. Osama bin Laden was big, but Osama bin Laden became big with the World Trade Center. This is a man who built a whole, as he would like to call it, a country,’ Trump said, referencing al-Baghdadi’s creation of the Islamic State.
Donald Trump addressed the nation Sunday morning, confirming that the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He said he had watched and monitored the whole operation Saturday night
Meeting in the situation room Saturday night (from left to right): National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, Vice President Mike Pence, Trump, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Mark Milley and Brig. General Marcus Evans
Trump also referred to al-Baghdadi and those who followed him as ‘losers,’ and lauded that no U.S. personnel were lost during the raid. He did say, however, that one ‘talented canine’ was injured.
‘I got to watch much of it. No personnel were lost in the operation, while a large number of Baghdadi’s fighters and companions were killed with him,’ Trump said during his rare Sunday morning remarks.
‘He died after running into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way,’ Trump continued, adding that Baghdadi drug three of his children with him. ‘They were led to certain death.’
‘He reached the end of the tunnel as our dogs chased him down. He ignited his vest, killing himself and the three children. His body was mutilated by the blast. the tunnel had caved in on it, in addition. But test results gave certain, immediate and totally positive identification. It was him. The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him,’ he detailed.
he White House confirmed that Trump watched and listened to the operations unfold in the Situation room Saturday night ā Sunday morning Syria time ā with National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Mark Milley and Brig. General Marcus Evans.
The president said, while claiming he’s been looking for Baghdadi ever since assuming office, that he’s potentially the only one better at ‘using the internet’ than ISIS forces.
‘A couple of weeks ago they were able to scope him out,’ Trump said of the U.S. intelligence community.
‘You know, these people are very smart, they are not into the use of cell phones any more. They’re very technically brilliant,’ the president said in reference to those working for ISIS.
‘You know, they use the internet better than almost anybody in the world, perhaps other than Donald Trump,’ he continued. ‘But they use the internet incredibly well and what they’ve done with the internet through recruiting and everything ā and that is why he died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming and crying, and frankly I think it’s something that should be brought out so that his followers and all of these young kids that want to leave various countries ā including the United States ā they should see how he died. He didn’t die a hero, he died a coward ā crying, whimpering, and screaming and bringing three kids with him to die. Certain death.’
The president teased Saturday night, ‘Something very big has just happened!’ and the White House also announced that night that the president would be ‘making a major statement’ Sunday morning from the White House.
Trump said he does not regret his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, which opened the way for Turkey to invade and target Kurdish forces.
Caliphate leader: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi detonated his own suicide vest during the targeted raid on his lair in Syria’s Idlib province and killed three of his children in the blast. He is shown in a still from a video released in April, having not been seen since he spoke at the Grand Mosque in Mosul in 2014
Syrians ride a motorcycle past a burnt vehicle near the site where a helicopter gunfire reportedly killed nine people near the northwestern Syrian village of Barisha
Al-Baghdadi arrived at the area of the raid 48 hours beforehand, Turkish officials said ā and the CIA assisted in locating him.
Information is now emerging over how the U.S. was able to track down Baghdadi, including details of his whereabouts from two inside informants.
A senior Iraqi intelligence official told theĀ Associated PressĀ that a few months ago an Iraqi aide to al-Baghdadi was killed in western Iraq by a U.S. airstrike, and his wife was arrested and handed over to Iraqi authorities.
The official indicated that the wife ended up being a key source of information on al-Baghdadiās whereabouts. The Iraqis who had her in custody were ultimately able to pass along to the U.S. coordinates on al-Baghdadi through information they learned from the aideās wife.
A second Iraqi security official said al-Baghdadiās brother-in-law was recently arrested by the Iraqis and also gave information on Baghdadiās whereabouts
The ISIS leader’s two wives, who were both wearing explosive devices that never detonated, were taken down. Several of his children were taken from the lair and are still alive. Several others were killed in the attack.
Trump said more people were killed than captured, but confirmed there are some in U.S. custody.
Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) confirmed on Sunday they had worked with the U.S. on a ‘successful’ operation against Islamic State.
‘Our strong and effective operations once again confirm our strength and determination to go after (Islamic State),’ the head of the SDF’s media office said.
The Syrian Democratic Forces is an alliance in the Syrian Civil War made up of primarily Kurdish, Arab and Assyrian/Syriac militias.
SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi took partial credit for taking down al-Baghdadi, but also thanked the president and U.S. Army in its efforts, which he said have been under way for almost half-a-year.
‘For five months there has been joint intel cooperation on the ground and accurate monitoring, until we achieved a joint operation to kill Abu Bakir al-Baghdadi. Thanks to everybody who participate in this great mission,’ Abdi tweeted, tagging Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
Al-Baghdadi, the leader of the so-called Islamic caliphate, blew himself up during the targeted attack on his lair in Syria’s Idlib province in the early hours of Sunday morning. His lair was in a village known for smuggling, and he arrived there 48 hours before the raid
The ISIS leader has been among U.S. and Europe’s force’s most wanted figures since his chilling call to arms in 2014, which saw a shift away from the mass casualty attacks carried out by al-Qaeda in favor of smaller-scale acts of violence.
Shifting away from the airline hijackings and other mass-casualty attacks that came to define al-Qaeda, al-Baghdadi encouraged smaller-scale acts of violence that would be harder for law enforcement to prepare for and prevent.
He encouraged jihadists who could not travel to the caliphate to instead kill where they were using whatever weapon they had at their disposal, resulting in a series of devastating attacks in the UK and Europe.
His wordsĀ inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries other than Iraq and Syria, resulting in the deaths of at least 2,043 people,Ā CNNĀ reports.
Since 2016, the State Department has offered a reward of up to $25 million for information or intelligence that could lead to Baghdadi’s capture or death.
Al-Baghdadi led ISIS for the last five years, presiding over its ascendancy as it cultivated a barbaric reputation for beheadings and horrific executions.
These recordings, often noted for their high production values, were distributed online along with the ISIS propaganda magazine Dabiq.
He remained among the few ISIS commanders still at large despite multiple claims in recent years about his death and even as his so-called caliphate dramatically shrank, with many supporters who joined the cause either imprisoned or jailed.
A picture taken on October 27, 2019 shows a burnt vehicle at the site where a helicopter gunfire killed nine people near the northwestern Syrian village of Barisha in the province of Idlib near the border with Turkey
Trump teased, without explanation on Saturday that ‘Something very big has just happened!’ and the White House confirmed the president would be addressing the nation on Sunday morning
With a Ā£19.5 million ($25m) bounty on his head, al-Baghdadi had been far less visible in recent years, releasing only sporadic audio recordings, including one just last month in which he called on members of the extremist group to do all they could to free ISIS detainees and women held in jails and camps.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported an attack carried out by a squadron of eight helicopters accompanied by a warplane.
The attacks were on positions where ISISĀ operatives were believed to be hiding in the Barisha area north of Idlib city, after midnight on Saturday-Sunday.
It said the helicopters targeted ISIS positions with heavy strikes for about 120 minutes, during which jihadists targeted the helicopters with heavy weapons.
The Syrian Observatory documented the death of nine people as a result of the coalition helicopter attack,Ā adding that the death toll is likely to rise due to the presence of a large number of wounded.
The strike came amid concerns that a recent American pullback from northeastern Syria could infuse new strength into the militant group, which had lost vast stretches of territory it had once controlled.
The purported audio was his first public statement since last April, when he appeared in a video for the first time in five years.
Reports suggest that al-Baghdadi, the elusive militant who has been the subject of an international manhunt for years, had been killed in Idlib, Syria
In 2014, he was a black-robed figure delivering a sermon from the pulpit of Mosul’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri, his only known public appearance.
He urged Muslims around the world to swear allegiance to the caliphate and obey him as its leader.
‘It is a burden to accept this responsibility to be in charge of you,’ he said in the video.
‘I am not better than you or more virtuous than you. If you see me on the right path, help me. If you see me on the wrong path, advise me and halt me. And obey me as far as I obey God.’
The death of such a high-value U.S. target comes amid a difficult political backdrop for Trump, who has been frustrated heavy media focus on the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry, which he calls a bipartisan smear.
He has also faced withering criticism from both Republicans and Democrats alike for his U.S. troop withdrawal from northeastern Syria, which permitted Turkey to attack America’s Kurdish allies.
The rise and fall of the Islamic State
The Islamic State group erupted from the chaos of Syria and Iraq’s conflicts, declaring itself a ‘caliphate’ after conquering a giant stretch of territory.
Its territorial rule, which at its height in 2014 stretched across nearly a third of both Syria and Iraq, ended in March with a last stand by several hundred of its militants at a tiny Syrian village on the banks of the Euphrates near the border with Iraq.
But the militants have maintained a presence in both countries, and their shadowy leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had continued releasing messages urging them to keep up the fight.
Here are the key moments in the rise and fall of the Islamic State group:
April 2013 –Ā Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announces the merger of his group with al-Qaeda’s franchise in Syria, forming the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
January 2014 –Ā Al-Baghdadi’s forces overrun the city of Fallujah in Iraq’s western Anbar province and parts of the nearby provincial capital of Ramadi. In Syria, they seize sole control of the city of Raqqa after driving out rival Syrian rebel factions, and it becomes their de facto capital.
February 2014 –Ā Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri disavows al-Baghdadi after the Iraqi militant ignores his demands that IS leave Syria.
June 2014 –Ā IS captures Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and pushes south as Iraqi forces crumble, eventually capturing Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit and reaching the outskirts of Baghdad. When they threaten Shiite holy sites, Iraq’s top Shiite cleric issues a call to arms, and masses of volunteers, largely backed and armed by Iran, join militias.
June 29, 2014 –Ā The group renames itself the Islamic State and declares the establishment of a self-styled ‘caliphate’ in its territories in Iraq and Syria. Al-Baghdadi is declared the caliph.
July 4, 2014 –Ā Al-Baghdadi makes his first public appearance, delivering a Friday sermon in Mosul’s historic al-Nuri Mosque. He urges Muslims around the world to swear allegiance to the caliphate and obey him as its leader.
August 2014 –Ā IS captures the town of Sinjar west of Mosul and begins a systematic slaughter of the tiny Yazidi religious community. Women and girls are kidnapped as sex slaves; hundreds remain missing to this day.
August 8, 2014 –Ā The U.S. launches its campaign of airstrikes against IS in Iraq.
September 22, 2014 –Ā The U.S.-led coalition begins an aerial campaign against IS in Syria.
January, 2015 –Ā Iraqi Kurdish fighters, backed by U.S.-led airstrikes, drive IS out of several towns north of Mosul. In Syria, Kurdish fighters backed by U.S. airstrikes repel an IS onslaught on the town of Kobani on the border with Turkey, the first significant defeat for IS.
April 1, 2015Ā – U.S.-backed Iraqi forces retake Tikrit, their first major victory against IS.
May 20, 2015 –Ā IS captures the ancient Syrian town of Palmyra, where the extremists later destroy archaeological treasures.
February 9, 2016 –Ā Iraqi forces recapture Ramadi after months of fighting and at enormous cost, with thousands of buildings destroyed. Almost the entire population fled the city.
June 26, 2016 – Fallujah is declared liberated by Iraqi forces after a five-week battle.
July 3, 2016 –Ā IS sets off a gigantic suicide truck bomb outside a Baghdad shopping mall, killing almost 300 people, the deadliest attack in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
October 17, 2016 –Ā Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announces the start of the operation to liberate Mosul.
Iraqi Army soldiers celebrate as they hold an IS flag, which they captured during a raid on a village outside Mosul in November 2016
November 5, 2016 – The U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces launch Operation Euphrates Wrath, the first of five operations aiming to retake Raqqa, starting with an encircling of the city.
January 24, 2017 –Ā Al-Abadi announces eastern Mosul has been ‘fully liberated’.
May 10, 2017 –Ā SDF captures the strategic Tabqa dam after weeks of battles and a major airlift operation that brought SDF fighters and their U.S. advisers to the area. The fall of the dam facilitated the push on Raqqa, about 25 miles away.
June 6, 2017 –Ā SDF fighters begin an attack on Raqqa from three sides, backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes.
June 18, 2017 –Ā Iraqi forces launch battle for Mosul’s Old City, the last IS stronghold there.
June 21, 2017 – IS destroys Mosul’s iconic al-Nuri Mosque and its 12th century leaning minaret as Iraqi forces close in.
July 10, 2017 – Iraqi PM declares victory over IS in Mosul and end of the extremists’ caliphate in Iraq.
October 17, 2017 – SDF takes full control of Raqqa after months of heavy bombardment that devastates the city.
September – December, 2017 – Syrian government forces, backed by Russian air power and Iranian forces, recapture IS territory on the western bank of the Euphrates River, seizing the cities of Deir el-Zour, Mayadin and Boukamal on the border with Iraq.
Isis lost its hold over Mosul in July 2017 but the city suffered severe bombing
August 23, 2018 – IS leader al-Baghdadi resurfaces in his first purported audio recording in almost a year; he urges followers to ‘persevere’ and continue fighting.
September 10, 2018 –Ā SDF launches a ground offensive, backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes, to take the last territory held by IS in Syria’s eastern province of Deir el-Zour.
March 23, 2019 – SDF declares the complete capture of Baghouz and the end of the Islamic State group’s territorial ‘caliphate’.
October 27, 2019 – President Donald Trump announced that al-Baghdadi was killed during a US. Special Ops forces raid on his hideout in northwest Syria. Trump said the ‘violent terror leader’ died after running into a dead-end tunnel, and detonating his suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children.
Ā Ā – Source: Associated Press
Story 2: Delusional Democrats Still Pushing Impeachment Despite No Evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors — Videos —
Varney: Dems still pushing impeachment despite al-Baghdadi triumph
Trump blasts Adam Schiff: ‘He’s a corrupt politician’
Trump calls impeachment inquiry a ālynchingā
Story 3: Joe Biden The Marathon Man For President — Videos
JOE BIDEN LEAD IS FADING: Could Pete Buttigieg Win the 2020 Democratic Nomination?
Joe Biden slips in latest New Hampshire poll
Biden unconcerned about Warrenās rise
Behind Bidenās bounce back
Joe Biden in Danger of Humiliating Loss in Iowa, Top Democrats Warn
2020 Daily Trail Markers: Biden campaigns in Iowa as others rise in polling
Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden In Statistical Dead Heat In Iowa: Poll | Morning Joe | MSNBC
Joe Biden Adds To Lead And Warren Surges In New NBC Poll Of 2020 Democrats | The 11th Hour | MSNBC
UPDATED DATAĀ 10/28/2019
On a daily basis, Morning Consult is surveying over 5,000 registered voters across the United States on the 2020 presidential election.Ā Every Monday, weāll update this pageĀ with the latest survey data, offering an in-depth guide to howĀ the race for the Democratic nomination is shaping up.
To receive an early look at this report, and other key 2020 data,Ā sign up here.
The figures are broken out among Democratic primary voters nationwide and in early primary states, which includes just voters who live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. The latest results are based on 15,431 survey interviews conducted between Oct. 21-27, 2019.
Hover over or click each line to track how support for candidates has changed week to week.
All
None
Select Options
After voters registered their first choice, they were asked a follow-up about whom they would choose as a second option. The results below show where the supporters for a selection of leading candidates could go next. Hover over or click cards to see more.
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders
Joe Biden
Pete Buttigieg
Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders
Respondents were asked whether they had a favorable impression of each of the following, and also had the option of saying they hadnāt heard of that person or had no opinion about them.
About Morning Consult Political Intelligence
On a daily basis, Morning Consult surveys over 5,000 registered voters across the United States. Along with 2020 presidential election data,Ā Political Intelligence tracks the approval ratings for allĀ governors,Ā senators, House members,Ā the president, and moreĀ at the national, state and congressional district level.
Each week, we will release a report with the most important findings on the 2020 election.Ā Sign up to receive that report in your inbox here.
Results from the most recent update
This page was last updated on October 28, 2019.
Our Democratic primary results are reported using 15,431 interviews with registered voters who indicated they may vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in their state. For those who say donāt know or no opinion, they are asked to pick a candidate they are leaning toward. Results are reported among first choice and those who lean toward a candidate. The interviews were collected October 21-27, 2019, and have a margin of error of +/- 1%. The āEarly Primary State Votersā demographic consists of 611 voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.
In the case of a tie, candidates are ordered alphabetically by last name.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary-2/
Joe Bidenās Zombie Campaign
VISION 2020Ā
The Zombie Campaign
Joe Biden is the least formidable front-runner ever. Will it matter?
Inevitably, he arrives late,Ā by SUV or van. The former vice-president is thin and, yes, heās old. He dresses neatly and always in blue. Staff envelop him. Thereās the body man, the advance man, the videographer, the photographer, the digital director, the traveling chief of staff, the traveling press secretary, the local press secretary, the adviser, the other adviser, the adviserās adviser, the surrogate, the other surrogate, and the bodyguard.
The looming presence of the last guy, Jim, is especially important for optics. Jim is tall and official-looking. He greets the world chest-first, his hands resting in a dignified clasp, his expression even, his mouth unmoving. Most people assume that heās a Secret Service agent. Which he was.
But ex-VPs donāt get security for life the way ex-presidents do. Most people donāt know that, not even the politically savvy types who attend these sorts of things. And thatās all for the best, because Jim ā or whatever local guy theyāve got filling in for him in Iowa or New Hampshire or Nevada or wherever else ā is a necessary component of the vibe theyāre trying to generate here, the Big Presidential Energy, if you will, that powers this production.
And it is a production. This is true even when the event is small, which it often is, because the stakes never are ā Joe Biden speaking off the cuff is something the entire campaign seems focused on preventing at all costs. Inside the community center or union hall or college auditorium, the stage is crafted just so. The red and blue letters ā each roughly the size of a 9-year-old ā spell IOWA 4 BIDEN. The American flag is stretched taut and stapled to the plywood. The lawn sign is stapled to the lectern. The delicate panes of teleprompter glass angle to meet his hopeful gaze, so that he may absorb the programmed speech as he peers out at his audience, which usually skews quite old and white, unless heās in South Carolina.
This first part ā the reading of the speech ā he almost always gets right. Even when he makes changes, rearranging the order of the words, skipping over a few, adding others, how could he not get it right? Heās been delivering some version of it for more than 40 years and living it for longer. He could deliver it in his sleep, if he ever sleeps.Ā Itās like my father always said: Joey, a job is about more than just a paycheck. Itās about your dignity. Itās about being able to look your child in the eye and say, āItās gonna be okay ā¦āĀ There is an undercurrent of shame that pulses throughout, this idea that the unequalness of our society is embarrassing for those who have access to less, rather than embarrassing for those who have more than anyone could need.
Folks ā¦ Not a joke!Ā Heās always saying something rather solemn, about cancer or immigration, and then adding, āNot a joke!ā as if anyone thought it might be.Ā Iām being serious here ā¦ Come on ā¦ The bottom line is ā¦ Iām not kidding around ā¦ The fact of the matter is ā¦ Barack and me ā¦ Folks ā¦ Folks ā¦ Folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ folks ā¦ FOLKS ā¦ folks ā¦ FoLkS ā¦ fOlKs ā¦ F. O. L. K. S. ā¦
And this next part ā the greeting of the voters ā he gets right, too. In this context, he possesses an almost mystical quality that, for whatever reason, does not come across when filtered through the kaleidoscope of newsprint or television. Itās the way he focuses his eyes, which are as blue as the seas, except for (yikes) that time the left eye filled with blood on CNN a few weeks back.
He is swarmed. Women reach out to him, linking their arms in his. He bows his head and lifts their hands to his mouth for a kiss and, later, when you ask them if that makes them uncomfortable, they look at you like you have three heads. This is the best day of their lives. Are you insane? There are men, too, who embrace him, wrapping their hands around his neck. He calls every male-presenting human he encounters āman.ā I watched him call a baby āman.ā As in,Ā Hey! HowĀareya, man?!Ā He is as skilled a selfie-taker as any influencer, and in the span of 30 or 40 minutes, he snaps hundreds, leaning his body against the rope that separates him from the crowd, straining it one, two, three feet forward. He really does connect with every living being this way, talking about their jobs or their health care as he listens, sometimes crying with them, whispering in their ears, taking their phone numbers and promising to call them. He does, in fact, do that. Everybody is Joe Bidenās long-lost friend. Every baby is Joe Bidenās long-lost child. A little girl in Iowa City called him her uncle Joe. On the Fourth of July in the town of Independence, he took off, running through the parade like a dingo with somebodyās newborn. As hard as it might be to believe that anything in this realm could not be bullshit, itās simply true that this isnāt.
His own loss is staggering in its scale and cruelty: Neilia, his wife, and Naomi, his infant daughter, killed in a car crash. Beau, his oldest son, who survived that crash with his brother, Hunter, killed decades later by brain cancer. And itās as though in that loss heās gained access to an otherwise imperceptible wavelength on which he communicates in this way, with the eyes and the hands.
āI donāt know how to describe it, but sometimes some people would walk up with a lot of emotion in their face, and without even hearing their story, he could connect with them,ā John Flynn, who served as Bidenās senior adviser in the White House, said. āHe would know it was either one thing or another, and he would just know how to approach them and to get them to gently open up if they wanted to. And if they didnāt want to, he just said, āHey, Iām with you, and Iām there for you. I feel your pain.āāā
Chris Coons was an intern for Biden in the Senate and is now a United States senator from Delaware himself. He told me about Loretta Wootten, a former colleague who in January went into a coma after a car crash that killed her husband. āI went to visit Loretta when she regained consciousness, and she looks at me, and she says, āDoes Joe know Iām here?ā Thatās her first sentence. I said, āI donāt know. I mean, heās running for president.ā And, she says, āI just would love to hear from him.ā The next time I see him, I say, āDo you remember Loretta Wootten?ā and he smiles and he says, āOf course.ā I said, āWell, Lorettaās husband was just killed in a car accident, and sheās in recovery.ā And he gets this look, and he turned to someone and said, āGet me a piece of paper.ā And he writes out this page-long, heartfelt message to her, hands it to me, and says, āPlease get this to her.ā When I delivered that to her, she wept with joy.ā
I have witnessed this kind of connection at nearly all of the countless events Iāve attended in a half-dozen states in the six months since Biden announced his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. If he ever does sleep, surely Joe Biden dreams as he proselytizes, of an unbroken America, its ideals and reputation restored, where everybody is folks and folks have everything they need and maybe some of what they want, where the field is just even enough that nobody is ashamed of their own place on it, and where the president isnāt an idiot but where you can easily deal with the idiots by kicking the shit out of them out back in a parking lot or something. Crucially, in this dream, Joe Biden is the president.
The pitch goes like this: Joe Biden ought to be the nominee because heās electable, a meaningless concept if recent history is any guide, and presidential, that wonderful word ā the thing Donald Trump could never be even though he literally is president ā despite the fact that Biden, who appears by almost any measure to be a good man, a man whose lone sin in life is ego (and does that even count anymore?), has spent a half-century grasping for this position and watching it slip through his fingers.
To anyone paying attention ā the army of political professionals more wired to observe shortcomings than are those likely to actually vote for him or for anyone else ā it looks, unmistakably, like itās happening again. His vulnerabilities are close to the surface. Thereās the basic fact of his oldness and the concerns, explicit or implicit, about his ability to stay agile and alive for four more years. This was true of Biden, who is 76, even more than it was true of Bernie Sanders, who is the oldest candidate at 78, up until Sanders had a heart attack while campaigning in Nevada earlier this month. (Itās not true at all of Elizabeth Warren, who is 70 but seems a decade younger. And itās not exactly true of Trump, who is 73 and really just seems crazy, not old.)
But itās not just his age itself. Itās his tendency to misspeak, his inartful debating style, and ā most of all ā his status as a creature from another time in the Democratic Party, when the politics of race and crime and gender were unrecognizably different. Itās not just that the Joe Biden of yesteryear sometimes peeks out from behind the No. 1 Obama Stan costume. Itās that the Joe Biden of today is expected to hold his former self accountable to the new standards set by a culture thatās prepared to reject him. And though heās the party Establishmentās obvious exemplar, he canāt seem to raise any money ā spending more in the last quarter than he brought in and moving into the homestretch with less than $9 million in the bank (roughly a third of what Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders has on hand). For political reporters, marveling every day at just how well this isnāt going, watching Biden can feel like being at the rodeo. Youāre there because on some level you know you might see someone get killed.
Yet Biden is still the front-runner. Volatile and potentially worthless as they may be, itās what the polls say. Biden leads the field on average by a handful of percentage points, though his lead has trended steadily downward, from a high of 33 in May to 20 in June to 11, and then to 9.9, and 6.6, and 5.4, according toĀ RealClearPolitics. In the whole campaign, there has only been one day ā October 8 ā when he slipped to second place, an average of 0.2 points behind Warren. Heās also the front-runner in South Carolina, Nevada, California, Texas, North Carolina, and Florida. āThere is this sense of hanging on. And perhaps he can. But thatās generally not the way the physics of these things work,ā former Obama adviser David Axelrod told me. āGenerally, youāre either moving up or moving down. Warren is clearly moving up. Thereās no sign that he is.ā
Biden is aware that itās not going well. But itās not apparent that he knows how to fix it. Recently, according to his staff, his anxieties have manifested more visibly. If he begins to question something small, he spirals, eventually questioning everything. Should he be saying this in his speech? Wait, should he be giving this speech at all? Should he even be focusing on this group? Is this even the right position? He freaks out over minor stuff on the trail that staffers donāt believe he should be concerning himself with and yet is unable to make strategic adjustments. But the staff concern themselves with unimportant matters, too, running what they think is a general-election campaign when they need to be running a primary. Inside the campaign, the Biden brain trust seems to exist more to comfort the candidate than to compel him, and strategy meetings inevitably devolve into meandering, ruminative roundtables that feel purposeless except to fill time in the day. Nobody will tell the candidate in plain terms what they think he needs to change. Not that Biden really listens anyway.
Some on the campaign still believe he can win, in part because they believe he should win. But even to them, the path to a collapse seems clear: Biden loses in Iowa and New Hampshire, where his leads have been steadily declining for months and where, recently, Elizabeth Warren has overtaken him, and then, as a result, loses his sheer aura of electability, too. But inside the campaign, they reportedly see another path, though it might not seem, at first, an optimistic one: Okay, so he loses Iowa and then New Hampshire, but so what? Because he is who he is and represents what he represents ā the embodiment of both the white-working-class model of the electorate and the glow of the Obama years ā he can weather the losses and march to victory through Super Tuesday and beyond. āTheir theory is a long, twilight struggle where they accumulate delegates everywhere as minority voters start playing a larger role,ā Axelrod said. āBut in reality, itās tough to be a winner when you keep losing or at least appear to be.ā
Biden wouldĀ obviously like you to think about his age as experience, but another way of thinking about experience is as a record. Heās got a long one. When he was elected to the Senate, Pete Buttigieg was still a decade away from birth. Thereās a lot of material, then, for Bidenās critics to work with. All sorts of stuff that doesnāt age well, or doesnāt quite compute, in this season of absolutism:Ā Anita HillĀ and allegations thatĀ he violated the personal spaceĀ of several women, controversy over his crusade against busing as a desegregation measure and his eagerness to work with segregationist lawmakers. Last week, after Biden attacked Trump for calling his impeachment a ālynching,ā video emerged of Biden calling Bill Clintonās impeachment the same thing. If it was relevant to American political life at any point since Richard Nixon was president, Biden probably said something about it, but itās new to many younger voters and activists and talking heads now.
Many of them treat Bidenās talking as yet another symptom of his age, but Biden has always been like this. āHis major defect is that he goes on and on and on,ā Orrin Hatch told the WashingtonĀ PostĀ in 1986, when Biden was 43. To say he overcame his childhood stutter would be a bad joke, like one of those I BEAT ANOREXIA T-shirts they sell on the Jersey boardwalk in size XXXL.
In Des Moines, in August, he told a crowd, āPoor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.ā Realizing what heād done, he tried to correct himself. āWealthy kids,ā he said, āblack kids, Asian kids. No, I really mean it, but think how we think about it.ā Two weeks later, in Keene, New Hampshire, he said, āI love this place. Look, whatās not to like about Vermont in terms of the beauty of it? And what a neat town. This is sort of a scenic, beautiful town.ā (When he returned to New Hampshire the following month, a protester held a sign that read WELCOME TO VERMONT, JOE.) And so on.
Biden is cocooned by family, longtime advisers, and former White House staff. His wife Jill, Val, Mike Donilon, Ted Kaufman, Bruce Reed, Annie Tomasini, Tony Blinken, Steve Ricchetti, Ron Klain. But beyond that small circle, veterans are harder to find on his campaign. Biden is chronically slow to make decisions, and his late entry into the race, which came months after many of his competitors, was an additional challenge to staffing the campaign. Many working at Biden headquarters in Philadelphia have no experience on a presidential campaign, and some have never worked on any campaign at all; even those closest to the candidate address him, deferentially, as āsir.ā
āSome of these folks who have never worked on a presidential before are like, āOkay, Iām working for the former vice-president!ā They donāt really feel like itās slipping,ā one senior campaign adviser told me. āThereās such reverence for getting to work for the vice-president that I think, for some of those folks, thereās a mentality ofĀ How could we possibly lose? Heās who he is.Ā I donāt think they see that thatās not all itās gonna take.ā (Yes, even Bidenās staff say āfolksā the way others say ālikeā or āum.ā)
For many of these staffers, the campaign feels like it should be a coronation. Joe Biden 2020 isnāt a labor of love or ideology. Itās about the proper order of things. Itās about whoās entitled to what. Itās the vehicle by which the Democratic Party Establishment arrives once more to power, the displaced Obama and Clinton professionals reinstalled at the levers. If the Republic is spared in the process ā which everybody genuinely wants, sure! ā thatās a plus. And itās great branding. When it comes to the enthusiasm voters wear on their sleeves for Warren or Sanders, the Biden campaign strikes a cool, dismissive pose, as if it could be believed that a candidate for president werenāt preoccupied with such metrics.
The activist wing of the party is a lost cause to Biden just as heās a lost cause to them. When they show up at his speeches to confront him or protest in support of the Green New Deal, something Iāve witnessed twice in New Hampshire, he attempts to formulate what he surely believes is a respectful response, and yet they donāt think itās enough, because nothing that he says could be enough because of who he is. Can you blame anyone under the age of 30 for their cynicism, for their hostility?
āInternally, there was always this idea that there would be some point when he wasnāt No. 1,ā one senior campaign adviser swears. āTo some extent, people were prepped for that. There isnāt a culture inside the campaign right now like,Ā This is a done deal and weāve lost.Ā The culture is,Ā This is getting real.Ā People are still reacting to that. The question is: Does this now change our strategy and our culture? Thatās where we are right now, figuring out what this new stature means.ā
Where they are, if youāre keeping track, is slumped. And itās a strange dynamic ā the most qualified candidate in the race, surrounded by entitled staff who donāt understand that they have to fight for the nomination, or even the presidency, but without a real case to make beyond a Democratic succession that would amount to an Obama restoration. āHe has no center,ā as one person close to the Biden family put it. āHeās literally only a politician. Thatās who he is. Thatās all he is. Biden is fundamentally a toadie. Heās just political. He needs to kiss ass? Heāll kiss ass.ā
āThey have him in the candidate-protection program,ā Axelrod says. āI donāt know if you can do that. I donāt know if you can get through a whole campaign that way. Either he can hack it or he canāt hack it. If youāre worried the candidate can hurt himself talking to a reporter, thatās a bad sign.ā (Biden declined to be interviewed for this story.)
For his part, Biden is consumed with his endorsements, another sign of his perhaps outdated political instincts; getting insiders to declare their support meant something when powerful political machines controlled the primary process, but it has much less relevance to presidential politics today. And the only endorsement that could matter hasnāt materialized. President Barack Obama has remained silent on the 2020 primary even as he saw it fit to involve himself in Canadian affairs, endorsing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. A senior White House official, reflecting on Bidenās weakness, told me Biden should have never even entered the race without knowing heād have the former presidentās support.
Of course, that was always less of a sure thing than it might have seemed. In 2016, Obama went all-in for Hillary, even as his vice-president contemplated a run. In the early stages of this race, he didnāt just avoid aligning himself with Biden but gestured toward other candidates, including unlikely contender Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts, possibly to discourage his former veep from running.
And then thereās Hunter Biden himself, who was going to become an issue one way or another. The 49-year-old son of privilege and tragedy, he has had struggles with addiction and run-ins with the law that have been well-documented. The campaign did its best to control the subject, cooperating with aĀ tell-all interviewĀ over the summer in which Hunter candidly discussed his drug use and his relationship with his brotherās widow. This is sometimes how flacks think theyāll get ahead of a story: You neuter the shock value by delivering the shock yourself. But when your son is a central character in anĀ impeachment sagaĀ likely to preoccupy all of Washington and political news for six months, itās a hard thing to get ahead of, especially when you donāt really seem to want to engage.
āItās sort of bewildering,ā Axelrod says. āI guess I understand it from a familial, psychological sense. It would just be so much better if he stated the obvious: Even Hunter has said he exercised poor judgment. He wonāt even say what his kid said. Itās an obvious question as to why the rules that heās going to apply in the future didnāt apply in the past. All this was foreseeable ā¦ You canāt say, āHe did nothing wrong,ā and, āHeāll never do it again.ā Those things donāt go together. Biden can be stubborn. I think his stubbornness is showing here.ā All of that said, Axelrod added, āwhat Trump is doing is loathsome and outrageous because thereās no evidence that Biden did anything wrong or that Hunter did anything wrong.ā
In a certain sense, impeachment creates for Biden what he wanted all along: a direct competition with Trump. Looked at it one way, itās a story about how the president of the United States was so worried about his formidable opponent that he risked his entire presidency, and even broke the law, to try to stop him. But in other ways, itās exactly what Biden hoped to avoid: a focus on his most troubled child, the last remaining member of his first family, and the privilege his political and celebrity status affords. Even if he didnāt do anything āwrong,ā Trump is right that thereās a swamp, though he doesnāt realize heās its ugliest creature, and impeachment is a daily reminder that Biden swims there, too. Who could withstand an entire year of character assassination by the president, who is aided by a political media that projects his every statement to the world?
At the Iowa State FairĀ in August, as candidates took to the stage to deliver their stump speeches and answer questions from the Des MoinesĀ Register,Ā I stood off to the side with a few members of the press. We craned our necks downward to squint at a zoomed-in photo of the side of Joe Bidenās head. There, just behind the ear, is where you can supposedly observe the scar from a face-lift, one of many cosmetic procedures Biden is rumored to have had.
The dramatic change to Bidenās appearance is a matter of preoccupation for Biden-watchers. In the timeline of images from throughout his career, you can observe as he grows older and then younger and then older but somehow more elegant and alert. His hair is white now but thicker than it was in the 1980s. Heās thinner, but his cheeks are fuller than they were in 2008. To be honest with you, he looks good. Heās almost 77!
This is also a minor obsession of the White House, as you can probably imagine. Privately, Trump has marveled at the āworkā Biden has had done and the fact that, in his opinion, he doesnāt look any better for it. Those who know him say the president is against plastic surgery (by which I assume they donāt mean breast implants) and, especially, bad plastic surgery, and he considers it an all-too-common tragedy when someone has their face inexpertly altered.
A senior White House official who regularly discusses the campaign with Trump was describing how his view of Biden has evolved since the winter. It was then, before Biden declared, that the campaign began conducting polling and sharing the results with Trump himself. The internal numbers were as bad as the external. Biden destroyed Trump. The presidentās anxieties only grew as Biden became a more popular topic on cable news. āIt was easy to get caught up,ā this official said. āThe president saw that itās easier to picture Joe Biden up on the debate stage than some of the others.ā
Over time, as Biden formally waded into the race, and the president saw the reality of the candidate as opposed to the idea of Vice-President Joe Biden, he grew less concerned, according to the senior White House official. Biden was no longer āthe guy he was worried about.ā And one of the reasons was, in Trumpian fashion, āhis look.ā Though the official adds a few more items to the list as well: āHis cadence. His inability to speak. His small crowds.ā
Trump has also commented on Bidenās wardrobe choices, wondering why heād wear Ralph Lauren polo shirts on the campaign trail that show off his graying chest hair and skinny arms. (Trump himself wears polo shirts almost exclusively while golfing).
Inside the White House and the reelection campaign, the true believers know how to decode Trumpās bitchy nicknames for his competitors. As iconic as āCrooked Hillaryā and āLyinā Tedā may be, his crowning achievement remains āLow Energy,ā his characterization of Jeb Bush. āSleepy Joeā is considered Trumpās attempt at a 2020 remake of āLow Energy,ā and itās all about emphasizing Bidenās age.
In September, somebody had the bright idea to stage an afternoon event under the open sky at the Indian Creek Nature Center in sunny Cedar Rapids. It was the day after news of the whistle-blower broke, but Biden stuck to the eventās topic, climate change, addressing all the usual themes. Then faces began turning upward to the birds overhead. Somebody from ShowtimeāsĀ The CircusĀ told me the birds were bald eagles, but at the time I thought they looked like hawks, which, I guess, is a sort of glass-half-empty or -half-full dilemma. Eventually, word of the alleged bald eagles made its way to Biden, and with a look of optimism, he turned his face to the sky. He grew emotional. He said that at the Lake House, Beau used to sit by the water and watch the bald eagles fly overhead. The night Beau died, in 2015, Biden said he watched an eagle take off from the lake, circle in the sky, and then fly away. He hadnāt seen another bald eagle since that night, he said, until now. Looking at the bird, he said, āMaybe thatās my Beau.ā
Biden wrote a book about his grief, and about his son, calledĀ Promise Me, Dad.Ā Therein, he tells a similar story, but with a different bird. That night, he wrote, āJill spotted a white egret at the far edge of the water.ā She told her husband that, as he lay dying, she whispered to Beau to go to the dock, āhis happy place,ā with his brother. āWe watched the egret for twenty minutes, until it finally took flight,ā Biden wrote. āThe two of us sat in silence as the egret circled overhead repeatedly, slowly gaining altitude, until it finally headed away to the south, beneath the clouds, and gradually disappeared from sight. āItās a sign from God,ā Jill said. āBeau being at the lake one last time, and heading for heaven.āāā
Anne KearnsĀ is an 84-year-old grandmother of 16 and retired professor. For 58 years, she has lived in the modest blue house with black shutters on North Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where Joe Biden lived during the first decade of his life.
āHe calls this āthe Homestead,āāā she told me last Sunday. We were sitting in the living room, surrounded by framed photos of her large family and one photo of Biden, propped up on the TV stand. For most of his career, Biden was among the least-wealthy members of Congress, an attractive bullet point that he continues to note even after amassing a fortune in his postāWhite House life. He often claims that ātheyā call him āMiddle-Class Joe.ā (As far as I can tell, he is the only person who calls himself this.) But heās always had a weakness for grand old houses, even before he could really afford them, and an odd habit of referring to his properties by nicknames: North Star (for the Delaware village in which it was located), the Station (his once-bustling home in Wilmington), and the Lake House (self-explanatory). What does Anne call the Homestead in which she lives? āWell, nothing,ā she said, laughing.
You could tell the story of Bidenās astonishingly long political career through Anne and through this house.
She first learned there was an interesting man who had once lived here in 1972, when she saw Bidenās ads on TV. At the time, he was running for the U.S. Senate against Cale Boggs, a powerful Republican who had won seven consecutive elections in Delaware, climbing from Congress to the governorās mansion and ultimately to the Senate. Boggs was 63, and Biden, who at 29 wouldnāt even be eligible to serve in the office he was seeking until two weeks after Election Day, used his seniority against him. āWe need some new thinking,ā read one of Bidenās advertisements. āHe understands whatās happening today,ā read another. āMy husband said to me ā he watched him all the time on TV ā and heād say, āAh, heās going to be something someday,āāā Anne said.
In 1988, when Biden was running for president the first time, reporters and authors began knocking on Anneās door. A boy who lived down the street brought her a signed photo Biden had addressed to her, thanking her for her cooperation in this strange endeavor.
By her count, Biden himself has visited the Homestead six times over the years, once privately with his late mother, who refused to get out of the car despite Anne assuring her that the visit was not a disturbance, and other trips with the media and even Hillary Clinton.
āHe came another time with Terry Moran fromĀ Nightline,Ā and they walked across the street. At that time, I had a leg done, and so my niece was sitting where you areā ā she gestured to my chair ā āand she said, āI think thatās Joe Biden coming.ā I thought,Ā No, he was here two weeks ago.Ā My nephew stood up, and he said, āAnne, it is Joe Biden.ā They had left a message on my phone and I didnāt hear it.ā
In 2008, the Obama-Biden campaign staged a formal event here with 400 people plus Secret Service sweeping through and rows of seating set up next door for reporters. Biden went upstairs to his old bedroom and signed the wall. Anne keeps photos from that day in an album underneath the television, and in them, Biden can be seen writing in black Sharpie, I AM HOME ā JOE BIDEN 9 * 1 * 08. By then, Biden had served in the Senate for 25 years and run for president twice ā once disastrously, ending in a plagiarism scandal, and once unremarkably, ending in a vice-presidential campaign.
The whole neighborhood, Anne said, took pride in him, supported him. Even the old lady across the street, whose sons told her she wasnāt allowed to speak to reporters or let them into the house anymore, still loves Joe Biden.
Age isnāt just a weakness for Biden. There are a lot of old people in America, and many of them really like the former vice-president. They donāt see a doddering, out-of-touch, exhausted man, as the 20- and 30- and 40-somethings who cover the campaign and dominate social media do. They look at him and see, well, a statesman from the popular recent administration who has moved to the left as the party has, if not quite as much as his younger rivals. These are the people that really vote in elections, and, to them, that all seems pretty good. āI worry when I read that he is even with somebody. I just read a piece this morning that heās even with the Warren lady,ā Anne said.
āI really think heād be wonderful in getting us back with the people that are overseas. I think heās wonderful dealing with people. I would definitely support him. I think he knows whatās going on with all those people ā¦ Heās a wonderful man. He really is wonderful, and he cares about people.ā
A few days after I left the Homestead, Biden gave a speech at the Scranton Cultural Center. At the last minute, he decided to make an unplanned stop on North Washington Avenue. As photographers snapped away from the sidewalk, Anne answered the door. Biden wrapped her in a hug.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/joe-biden-2020-campaign.html
CNN Poll: Biden’s lead in Democratic primary hits widest margin since April
ByĀ Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
Updated 7:28 AM ET, Wed October 23, 2019
WASHINGTON (CNN) Former Vice President Joe Biden’sĀ leadĀ in the race for theĀ Democratic nomination for presidentĀ has rebounded, and now stands at its widest margin since April, according to a new CNN poll conducted byĀ SSRS.
The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were
conducted from October 17-20, 2019 among a sample of 1,003 respondents. The landline total respondents were
352 and there were 651 cell phone respondents. The margin of sampling error for total respondents is +/- 3.7 at
the 95% confidence level. The design effect is 1.47.More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting
http://www.ssrs.com. Question text noted in parentheses was rotated or randomized. Unless otherwise noted, results
beginning with the March 31-April 2, 2006 survey and ending with the April 22-25, 2017 survey are from surveys
conducted by ORC International. Results before March 31, 2006 are from surveys conducted by Gallup.
NOTE ABOUT CROSSTABS
Interviews were conducted among a representative sample of the adult population, age 18 or older, of the United
States. Members of demographic groups not shown in the published crosstabs are represented in the results for
each question in the poll. Crosstabs on the pages that follow only include results for subgroups with a minimum
n=125 unweighted cases. Results for subgroups with fewer than n=125 unweighted cases are not displayed and
instead are denoted with “SN” because samples of that size carry larger margins of sampling error and can be too
small to be projectable with confidence to their true values in the population.
2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
Jump to navigationJump to search
1,885 of 3,769[a]Ā pledged delegate votes needed to win the presidential nomination at theĀ convention‘s first ballot.[1]
(2,268 of all 4,535[b]Ā delegate votes needed to win any subsequent ballots at aĀ contested convention)[1]
Hillary Clinton
2020 U.S. presidential election
TheĀ 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucusesĀ will be a series of electoral contests organized by theĀ Democratic PartyĀ to select the approximately 3,769[a]Ā pledged delegates to theĀ Democratic National Convention. Those delegates shall, by pledged votes, elect the Democratic nominee forĀ president of the United StatesĀ in theĀ 2020 U.S. presidential election.[2]Ā The elections are scheduled to take place from February to June 2020 in all fiftyĀ U.S. states, theĀ District of Columbia, fiveĀ U.S. territories, andĀ Democrats Abroad.
Independently of the result of primaries and caucuses, the Democratic Party willāfrom its group of party leaders and elected officialsāalso appoint 765[b]Ā unpledged delegates (superdelegates) to participate in its national convention. In contrast to all previous election cycles, superdelegates will no longer have the right to cast decisive votes at the convention’s first ballot for the presidential nomination (limiting their voting rights to either non-decisive votes on the first ballot or decisive votes for subsequent ballots on aĀ contested convention).[2][3][4]
The field of major Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 election peaked at more than two dozen. As of October 24, 2019, 18 major candidates are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. The October 15, 2019 Democratic presidential debate inĀ Westerville, OhioĀ featured 12 candidates, setting a record for the highest number of candidates in one presidential debate.
Contents
Background[edit]
AfterĀ Hillary Clinton‘s loss in theĀ previousĀ election, many felt the Democratic Party lacked a clear leader.[5]Ā There remained divisions in the party following theĀ 2016 primariesĀ which pitted Clinton againstĀ Bernie Sanders.[6][7]Ā Between the 2016 election and theĀ 2018 midterm elections, Senate Democrats have generally shifted to theĀ political leftĀ in relation to college tuition, healthcare, and immigration.[8][9]Ā TheĀ 2018 electionsĀ saw the Democratic Party regain the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years, picking up seats in both urban and suburban districts.[10][11]
Soon after the 2016 general election, the division between Clinton and Sanders supporters was highlighted in theĀ 2017 Democratic National Committee chairmanship electionĀ betweenĀ Tom PerezĀ andĀ Keith Ellison.[12]Ā Perez was narrowly elected chairman and subsequently appointed Ellison as theĀ Deputy Chair, a largely ceremonial role.[8][9]
The 2020 field of Democratic presidential candidates peaked at more than two dozen candidates. According toĀ Politifact, this field is believed to be the largest field of presidential candidates for any American political party since 1972;[c]Ā it exceeds the field of 17 major candidates that sought theĀ Republican presidential nomination in 2016.[14]Ā In May 2019, CBS News referred to the field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates as “the largest and most diverse Democratic primary field in modern history”.[15]Ā As of October 24, 2019, 18 major candidates are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.[16]Ā The October 15, 2019 Democratic presidential debate in Westerville, Ohio featured 12 candidates, setting a record for the highest number of candidates in one presidential debate.[17][18]
Reforms since 2016[edit]
On August 25, 2018, theĀ Democratic National Committee (DNC)Ā members passed reforms to the Democratic Party’s primary process in order to increase participation[19]Ā and ensure transparency.[20]Ā State parties are encouraged to use a government-run primary whenever available and increase the accessibility of their primary throughĀ same-dayĀ orĀ automaticĀ registration and same-day party switching. Caucuses are required to have absentee voting, or to otherwise allow those who cannot participate in person to be included.[19]
The new reforms also regulate how theĀ Democratic National ConventionĀ shall handle the outcome of primaries and caucuses for three potential scenarios:[2][4]
The reforms mandate thatĀ superdelegatesĀ refrain from voting on the first presidential nominating ballot, unless a candidate via the outcome of primaries and caucuses already has gained enough votes (more than 50% of all delegate votes) among only the elected pledged delegates. The prohibition for superdelegates to vote at the first ballot for the last two mentioned scenarios, does not preclude superdelegates from publicly endorsing a candidate of their choosing before the convention.[4]
In aĀ contested conventionĀ where no majority of minimum 1,886 pledged delegate votes is found for a single candidate in the first ballot, all superdelegates will then regain their right to vote on any subsequent ballot necessary in order for a presidential candidate to be nominated (raising the majority needed for such to 2,267 votes).[2][4]
Candidates[edit]
Major candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries have either: (a) served asĀ Vice President, a member of theĀ cabinet, aĀ U.S. Senator, aĀ U.S. Representative, or aĀ Governor, (b) been included in a minimum of fiveĀ independent national polls, or (c) received substantial media coverage.[21][22][23][24][25][26]
More than 250 candidates who did not meet the above-referenced criteria to be deemed major candidates also filed with theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ to run for president in the Democratic Party primary.[27]
Current candidates[edit]
The following list of current candidates includes major candidates that have filed with theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ to run for president in the 2020 Democratic primary, have officially announced their respective candidacies, and have not withdrawn their candidacies. As of October 24, 2019, the total number of current candidates is 18.
Announcement date
Michael Bennet
(ageĀ 54)
New Delhi, India
Colorado
Campaign
Campaign:Ā May 2, 2019
FEC filing[28]
Joe Biden
(ageĀ 76)
Scranton, Pennsylvania
U.S. senatorĀ fromĀ DelawareĀ (1973ā2009)
Candidate for President inĀ 1988Ā andĀ 2008
Delaware
Campaign
Campaign:Ā April 25, 2019
FEC filing[30]
Cory Booker
(ageĀ 50)
Washington, D.C.
MayorĀ ofĀ Newark,Ā New JerseyĀ (2006ā2013)
New Jersey
Campaign
Campaign:Ā February 1, 2019
FEC filing[32]
Steve Bullock
(ageĀ 53)
Missoula, Montana
Attorney GeneralĀ ofĀ MontanaĀ (2009ā2013)
Montana
Campaign
Campaign:Ā May 14, 2019
FEC filing[34]
Pete Buttigieg
(ageĀ 37)
South Bend, Indiana
Indiana
Campaign
Exploratory committee:Ā January 23, 2019
Campaign:Ā April 14, 2019
FEC filing[37]
JuliƔn Castro
(ageĀ 45)
San Antonio, Texas
MayorĀ ofĀ San Antonio,Ā TexasĀ (2009ā2014)
Texas
Campaign
Exploratory committee:
December 12, 2018
Campaign:Ā January 12, 2019
FEC filing[39]
John Delaney
(ageĀ 56)
Wood-Ridge, New Jersey
Maryland
Campaign
Campaign:Ā July 28, 2017
FEC filing[41]
Tulsi Gabbard
(ageĀ 38)
Leloaloa, American Samoa
Hawaii
Campaign
Campaign:Ā January 11, 2019
FEC filing[43]
Kamala Harris
(ageĀ 55)
Oakland, California
Attorney GeneralĀ ofĀ CaliforniaĀ (2011ā2017)
California
Campaign
Campaign:Ā January 21, 2019
FEC filing[45]
Amy Klobuchar
(ageĀ 59)
Plymouth, Minnesota
Minnesota
Campaign
Campaign:Ā February 10, 2019
FEC filing[47]
Wayne Messam
(ageĀ 45)
South Bay, Florida
Florida
Campaign
Exploratory committee:
March 13, 2019
Campaign:Ā March 28, 2019
FEC filing[49]
Beto O’Rourke
(ageĀ 47)
El Paso, Texas
Texas
Campaign
Campaign:Ā March 14, 2019
FEC filing[51]
Bernie Sanders
(ageĀ 78)
Brooklyn, New York
U.S. representativeĀ fromĀ VT-ALĀ (1991ā2007)
MayorĀ ofĀ Burlington, VermontĀ (1981ā1989)
CandidateĀ for President inĀ 2016
Vermont
Campaign
Campaign:Ā February 19, 2019
FEC filing[53]
Joe Sestak
(ageĀ 67)
Secane, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Campaign:Ā June 22, 2019
FEC filing[55]
Tom Steyer
(ageĀ 62)
Manhattan, New York
Founder ofĀ Farallon Capital
California
Campaign
Campaign:Ā July 9, 2019
FEC filing[57]
Elizabeth Warren
(ageĀ 70)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Special Advisor for theĀ Consumer Financial Protection BureauĀ (2010ā2011)
Massachusetts
Campaign
Exploratory committee:
December 31, 2018
Campaign:Ā February 9, 2019
FEC filing[59]
Marianne Williamson
(ageĀ 67)
Houston, Texas
Founder ofĀ Project Angel Food
IndependentĀ candidate forĀ U.S. HouseĀ fromĀ CA-33Ā inĀ 2014
California
Campaign
Exploratory committee:
November 15, 2018
Campaign:Ā January 28, 2019
FEC filing[61]
Andrew Yang
(ageĀ 44)
Schenectady, New York
Founder ofĀ Venture for America
New York
Campaign
Campaign:Ā November 6, 2017
FEC filing[63]
Beside these major candidates, more than 250 other candidates who did not meet the above-referenced criteria to be deemed major candidates also filed with theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ to run for president in the Democratic Party primary.[65]Ā Other notable candidates who have not suspended their respective campaigns include:
Candidates who withdrew from the race before the 2020 primaries[edit]
The candidates in this section were major candidates who withdrew or suspended their campaigns before the 2020 Democratic primary elections began.
announced
suspended
Richard Ojeda
(age 48)
Rochester, Minnesota
West Virginia
FEC filing[77]
Eric Swalwell
(ageĀ 38)
Sac City, Iowa
California
(running forĀ re-election)
Campaign
FEC filing[80]
Mike Gravel
(ageĀ 89)
Springfield, Massachusetts
CandidateĀ for President inĀ 2008
California
Exploratory committee:Ā March 19, 2019ā
April 1, 2019
(co-endorsed Sanders and Gabbard)[83]
Campaign
FEC filing[84]
John Hickenlooper
(ageĀ 67)
Narberth, Pennsylvania
MayorĀ ofĀ Denver,Ā ColoradoĀ (2003ā2011)
Colorado
(running forĀ U.S. Senate)[86]
Campaign
FEC filing[87]
Jay Inslee
(ageĀ 68)
Seattle, Washington
U.S. representativeĀ fromĀ WA-01Ā (1999ā2012)
Washington
(running forĀ re-election)[90]
Campaign
FEC filing[91]
Seth Moulton
(ageĀ 41)
Salem, Massachusetts
Massachusetts
(running forĀ re-election)[94]
Campaign
FEC filing[95]
Kirsten Gillibrand
(ageĀ 52)
Albany, New York
U.S. representativeĀ fromĀ NY-20Ā (2007ā2009)
New York
Exploratory committee:Ā January 15, 2019ā
March 16, 2019
Campaign
FEC filing[98]
Bill de Blasio
(ageĀ 58)
Manhattan, New York
New York
Campaign
FEC filing[101]
Tim Ryan
(ageĀ 46)
Niles, Ohio
U.S. representativeĀ fromĀ OH-17Ā (2003ā2013)
Ohio
(running forĀ re-election)[104]
Campaign
FEC filing[105]
The following notable individuals who did not meet the criteria to become major candidates have terminated their respective campaigns:
Potential major candidates[edit]
The persons listed in this section have, as of October 22, 2019, reportedly considered presidential bids within the past six months and would be major candidates.
FormerĀ Mayor
Michael Bloomberg
fromĀ New York
FormerĀ Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton
fromĀ New York
FormerĀ Attorney General
Eric Holder
fromĀ Washington D.C.
Declined to be candidates[edit]
These individuals have been the subject of presidential speculation, but have publicly denied or recanted interest in running for president.
Political positions of candidates[edit]
Debates[edit]
In December 2018, theĀ Democratic National CommitteeĀ (DNC) announced the preliminary schedule for 12 official DNC-sanctioned debates, set to begin in June 2019, with six debates in 2019 and the remaining six during the first four months of 2020. Candidates are allowed to participate inĀ forumsĀ featuring multiple other candidates as long as only one candidate appears on stage at a time; if candidates participate in any unsanctioned debate with other presidential candidates, they will lose their invitation to the next DNC-sanctioned debate.[192][193]
If any debates will be scheduled to take place with a location in the first four primary/caucus states (Iowa,Ā New Hampshire,Ā Nevada, andĀ South Carolina), the DNC has decided such debates, at the earliest, will be held in 2020.[192]Ā The DNC also announced that it would not partner withĀ Fox NewsĀ as a media sponsor for any debates.[194][195]Ā Fox News had last held a Democratic debate in 2003.[196]Ā All media sponsors selected to host a debate will as a new rule be required to appoint at least one female moderator for each debate, to ensure there will not be a gender skewed treatment of the candidates and debate topics.[197]
(ET)
(15.3m live TV; 9m streaming)
Miami, Florida
MSNBC
Telemundo
Savannah Guthrie
Lester Holt
Rachel Maddow
Chuck Todd
[200][201]
(18.1m live TV; 9m streaming)
(8.7m live TV; 2.8m streaming)
Detroit, Michigan
Don Lemon
Jake Tapper
(10.7m live TV; 3.1m streaming)
Texas Southern University,
Houston, Texas
Univision
David Muir
Jorge Ramos
George Stephanopoulos
Otterbein University,
Westerville, Ohio
The New York Times
Anderson Cooper
Marc Lacey
Atlanta,Ā Georgia
The Washington Post
Andrea Mitchell
Ashley Parker
Kristen Welker
Los Angeles, California
PBS
Primary election polling[edit]
The following graph depicts the evolution of the standing of each candidate in the poll aggregators since December 2018.
updated
polled
Biden
Warren
Sanders
Buttigieg
Harris
Yang
O’Rourke
Klobuchar
Booker
Timeline[edit]
Overview[edit]
campaign
committee
candidate
elections
caucuses
Tuesday
convention
2017[edit]
John DelaneyĀ was the first major candidate to announce his campaign, two and a half years before the 2020 Iowa caucus.
In the weeks following the election ofĀ Donald TrumpĀ in theĀ 2016 election, media speculation regarding potential candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries began to circulate. As the Senate began confirmation hearings for members of the cabinet, speculation centered on the prospects of the “hell-no caucusā, six senators who went on to vote against the majority of Trump’s nominees. According toĀ Politico, the members of the “hell-no caucus” wereĀ Cory Booker,Ā Kamala Harris,Ā Kirsten Gillibrand,Ā Bernie Sanders,Ā Jeff Merkley, andĀ Elizabeth Warren.[218][219]Ā Other speculation centered on then-Vice-PresidentĀ Joe BidenĀ making a third presidential bid following failed attempts inĀ 1988Ā andĀ 2008. Biden had previously served as U.S. senator from Delaware (1973ā2009).[220]
2018[edit]
EntrepreneurĀ Andrew YangĀ was the second major Democratic candidate to announce his campaign.
In August 2018, Democratic Party officials and television networks began discussions as to the nature and scheduling of the following year’s debates and the nomination process.[223]Ā Changes were made to the role of superdelegates, deciding to only allow them to vote on the first ballot if the nomination is uncontested.[224]Ā TheĀ Democratic National CommitteeĀ (DNC) announced the preliminary schedule for the 12 official DNC-sanctioned debates, set to begin in June 2019, with six debates in 2019 and the remaining six during the first four months of 2020.
On November 6, 2018, theĀ 2018 midterm electionsĀ were held. The election was widely characterized as aĀ “blue wave” election. Mass canvassing, voter registration drives and deep engagement techniques drove turnout high. Despite this, eventual presidential candidatesĀ U.S. RepresentativeĀ Beto O’RourkeĀ ofĀ TexasĀ andĀ State SenatorĀ Richard OjedaĀ ofĀ West VirginiaĀ both lost their respective races.[225]
August
November
December
2019
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard announced her candidacy on January 11, 2019.
Sen. Kamala Harris launched her bid on January 21, 2019.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren launched her bid on February 9, 2019
Sen. Bernie Sanders launched his second campaign on February 19, 2019.
Rep. Beto O’Rourke launched his bid on March 14, 2019.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg launched his campaign on April 14, 2019.
Former Vice President Joe Biden launched his third campaign on April 25, 2019.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Primary and caucus calendar
Democratic primary and caucus calendar by currently scheduled date
February
March 3 (Super Tuesday)
March 10
March 17
March 24
April 4ā7
April 28
May
June
No scheduled 2020 date
The following primary and caucus dates have been scheduled by state statutes or state party decisions, but are subject to change pending legislation, state party delegate selection plans, or the decisions of state secretaries of state:[324]
The 57 states, districts, territories, or other constituencies with elections of pledged delegates to decide the Democratic presidential nominee, currently plan to hold the first major determining step for these elections via 50 primaries[l]Ā and seven caucuses (Iowa, Nevada, Wyoming, and four territories).[324]Ā The number of states holding caucuses decreased from 14 in theĀ 2016 nomination processĀ to only three in 2020.[330][331]
National convention
TheĀ 2020 Democratic National ConventionĀ is scheduled to take place inĀ Milwaukee,Ā WisconsinĀ on July 13ā16, 2020.[332][333][334]
In addition to Milwaukee, the DNC also considered bids from three other cities:Ā Houston,Ā Texas;[335]Ā Miami Beach, Florida;[336]Ā andĀ Denver,Ā Colorado. Denver, though, was immediately withdrawn from consideration by representatives for the city, who cited scheduling conflicts.[337]
Endorsements
Campaign finance
This is an overview of the money being raised and spent by each campaign for the entire period running from January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019, as it was reported to theĀ Federal Election CommissionĀ (FEC). Total raised are the sum of all individual contributions (large and small), loans from the candidate, and transfers from other campaign committees. The last column, Cash On Hand (COH), has been calculated by subtracting the “spent” amount from the “raised” amount, thereby showing the remaining cash each campaign had available for its future spending as of September 30, 2019. In total the candidates have raised $476,284,606.
donations
(asĀ % of
ind.contrib)
See also
Notes
References …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1343-1346
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadĀ Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9