The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), an organization that helps organize Republican campaigns for the U.S. House, said Tuesday that it had been hacked by an unknown entity over the past year.  

Politico, which broke the story early Tuesday, said that the email accounts of four “senior aides” had been surveilled for several months. The NRCC became aware of the issue in April, Politico said. CNN, citing anonymous sources, reported the hackers had stolen passwords and could have signed into the surveilled accounts. 

NRCC spokesman Ian Prior confirmed that the organization had been hacked and was in the process of conducting an internal investigation.

Prior also said that the FBI had been notified and would be conducting its own probe. 
…

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), an organization that helps organize Republican campaigns for the U.S. House, said Tuesday that it had been hacked by an unknown entity over the past year.  

Politico, which broke the story early Tuesday, said that the email accounts of four “senior aides” had been surveilled for several months. The NRCC became aware of the issue in April, Politico said. CNN, citing anonymous sources, reported the hackers had stolen passwords and could have signed into the surveilled accounts. 

NRCC spokesman Ian Prior confirmed that the organization had been hacked and was in the process of conducting an internal investigation.

Prior also said that the FBI had been notified and would be conducting its own probe. 
…

The University of California at Berkeley on Monday settled a free speech lawsuit accusing the school of discriminating against speakers with conservative views. 

Under the settlement filed with the federal court in San Francisco, the university will modify its procedures for handling “major events,” which typically draw hundreds of people, and agreed not to charge “security” fees for a variety of activities, including lectures and speeches.

It will also pay $70,000 to cover legal costs of the Berkeley College Republicans and the Tennessee-based Young America’s Foundation, which filed the lawsuit in April 2017.

The settlement followed an April 27 decision by U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney letting the plaintiffs challenge what they called the university’s “secret” or unfairly restrictive policies toward conservative speakers.

She also let the plaintiffs pursue an equal protection claim over a security fee charged to host conservative commentator Ben Shapiro that was well above a fee for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal wing.

In a statement, the university said its new fee schedule is consistent with its treatment of other student groups, and called changes to its major events policy “non-substantive.”

“It has been that very policy that has enabled the campus to work effectively with the Berkeley College Republicans as they hosted numerous events featuring prominent conservative speakers without incident or interruption,” spokesman Dan Mogulof said.

Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the settlement addressed university policies that were “flatly unconstitutional” under the First Amendment.

“It is no longer able to tax speech on campus when it finds the speech to be disfavored or unpopular,” she said in an interview. “The university has taken a very important liberty-enhancing step to cover these fees.”

Dhillon added: “We wanted a settlement that doesn’t benefit just conservative students, but all students.”

The U.S. Department of Justice in January filed a “statement of interest” in the case, accusing the university of applying a “double standard” by imposing tougher rules on the Berkeley College Republicans.

Justice Department official Jesse Panuccio applauded the settlement in a statement on Monday, calling it a “win for protecting free speech on public college campuses.”

The case is Young America’s Foundation et al v Napolitano et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-02255.
…

The University of California at Berkeley on Monday settled a free speech lawsuit accusing the school of discriminating against speakers with conservative views. 

Under the settlement filed with the federal court in San Francisco, the university will modify its procedures for handling “major events,” which typically draw hundreds of people, and agreed not to charge “security” fees for a variety of activities, including lectures and speeches.

It will also pay $70,000 to cover legal costs of the Berkeley College Republicans and the Tennessee-based Young America’s Foundation, which filed the lawsuit in April 2017.

The settlement followed an April 27 decision by U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney letting the plaintiffs challenge what they called the university’s “secret” or unfairly restrictive policies toward conservative speakers.

She also let the plaintiffs pursue an equal protection claim over a security fee charged to host conservative commentator Ben Shapiro that was well above a fee for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal wing.

In a statement, the university said its new fee schedule is consistent with its treatment of other student groups, and called changes to its major events policy “non-substantive.”

“It has been that very policy that has enabled the campus to work effectively with the Berkeley College Republicans as they hosted numerous events featuring prominent conservative speakers without incident or interruption,” spokesman Dan Mogulof said.

Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the settlement addressed university policies that were “flatly unconstitutional” under the First Amendment.

“It is no longer able to tax speech on campus when it finds the speech to be disfavored or unpopular,” she said in an interview. “The university has taken a very important liberty-enhancing step to cover these fees.”

Dhillon added: “We wanted a settlement that doesn’t benefit just conservative students, but all students.”

The U.S. Department of Justice in January filed a “statement of interest” in the case, accusing the university of applying a “double standard” by imposing tougher rules on the Berkeley College Republicans.

Justice Department official Jesse Panuccio applauded the settlement in a statement on Monday, calling it a “win for protecting free speech on public college campuses.”

The case is Young America’s Foundation et al v Napolitano et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-02255.
…

Speaking to a packed auditorium of enthusiastic young people Nov. 27, Bernie Sanders already seemed to be campaigning for the White House again. But the Vermont senator was appearing at George Washington University as an author — not a presidential candidate.

Sanders’ new book, “Where We Go From Here,” went on sale that day, giving him a fresh opportunity to promote his ideas without going through the formality — yet — of launching another presidential campaign.

“What I believe from the bottom of my heart is that it is absolutely imperative that Donald Trump not be elected president of the United States of America. And I’m going to do everything that I can to make certain that that does not happen,” Sanders said.

He later added that if he concludes he is the strongest candidate to take on Trump, he’ll jump into the race.

Regardless of whether Sanders runs, he and virtually every other prominent Democrat considering a 2020 presidential bid are already participating in the book primary.

Julian Castro, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary, has promoted his book, “An Unlikely Journey: Waking up from My American Dream.” New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been on the road touting her children’s book, “Bold & Brave: Ten Heroes Who Won Women the Right to Vote.” And in January, California Sen. Kamala Harris will release her memoir, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey,” with a picture book memoir to debut around the same time.

And, of course, there’s Michelle Obama. The former first lady has repeatedly said she has no plans to run for office, but she’s filled arenas and influenced the political conversation as she’s promoted her memoir, “Becoming.”

Ahead of a 2020 primary that could pit as many as two dozen Democrats against one another, the books offer potential presidential candidates an early opportunity to introduce themselves to voters in a favorable light.

“Every campaign book has to figure out a way in the predictable tsunami of campaign books that will be coming for the 2020 election to distinguish their book and their product and to extend their brand,” said Steve Ross, who formerly led Random House’s Crown division and worked with authors including former President Barack Obama.

It’s a strategy that has served presidential hopefuls from Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump, who wrote or authorized books that served as platforms for ideas and shaping their image.

John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” came out in 1955, when he was in his late 30s, and its sketches of political figures who made unpopular decisions presented him as a serious thinker who, like his subjects, would risk his career for the right cause.

Sen. John McCain’s career was influenced, in part, by his acclaimed memoir “Faith of My Fathers,” which came out in 1999, around the time of his first presidential run. It marked the first time he wrote at length about his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, which helped define his public identity.

The deeply personal exploration of race in Barack Obama’s “Dreams from My Father” propelled him onto the national scene when it was republished during his 2004 Senate campaign. His follow-up, “The Audacity of Hope,” mixed policy ideas and personal reflections to become a vital part of his successful 2008 presidential campaign.

Ross, who is now the president of the Steve Ross Agency LLC, said the quality of the writing is key to a campaign book’s success. If a book is well-written, he said, “it’s like selling out a theater with a two-hour biopic about your life that’s directed by you and starring you, the politician.”

“There are a lot of advantages for both the publisher and for the candidate to have a book as a narrative product,” he added. “They can’t control what The Washington Post and The New York Times and Fox News is going to say about them, but they can control what’s between the covers.”

With book authorship comes the opportunity for would-be candidates to travel to promote not only their book but also their strategy for the country, said Michael Steel, who was an adviser to former House Speaker John Boehner and to Jeb Bush’s 2016 Republican presidential campaign.

“Particularly for the higher-profile potential candidates, it’s an opportunity to get out there and talk about your vision and your record — and it’s particularly good because in addition to political news outlets, you can talk to softer-edged media outlets,” Steel said. “You can go on ‘The View,’ you can go on the ‘Today’ show, you can go on radio stations across the country and talk about the book.”

Gillibrand appeared on “The View” in November to promote her book, which contains stories of women who fought for the right to vote. In the interview, she said the book was for “little boys and little girls to understand what leadership looks like.”

As expected, she was asked about her own aspirations.

Calling it a “very important moral question,” Gillibrand told the hosts that she believed she’d been called to fight “as hard as I possibly can” to restore decency and integrity to the country and that she was considering a run.

Steel drew a distinction between the flurry of books that are being released as candidates consider launching campaigns and the books that are released before a presidential run is officially in the works.

“The books that are written before a candidate decides to run are often far more revealing about their actual character and personality and background,” Steel said. “Those are also the ones that can occasionally reveal things that the person probably wouldn’t have revealed if they were planning to run for president.”
…

Speaking to a packed auditorium of enthusiastic young people Nov. 27, Bernie Sanders already seemed to be campaigning for the White House again. But the Vermont senator was appearing at George Washington University as an author — not a presidential candidate.

Sanders’ new book, “Where We Go From Here,” went on sale that day, giving him a fresh opportunity to promote his ideas without going through the formality — yet — of launching another presidential campaign.

“What I believe from the bottom of my heart is that it is absolutely imperative that Donald Trump not be elected president of the United States of America. And I’m going to do everything that I can to make certain that that does not happen,” Sanders said.

He later added that if he concludes he is the strongest candidate to take on Trump, he’ll jump into the race.

Regardless of whether Sanders runs, he and virtually every other prominent Democrat considering a 2020 presidential bid are already participating in the book primary.

Julian Castro, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary, has promoted his book, “An Unlikely Journey: Waking up from My American Dream.” New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been on the road touting her children’s book, “Bold & Brave: Ten Heroes Who Won Women the Right to Vote.” And in January, California Sen. Kamala Harris will release her memoir, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey,” with a picture book memoir to debut around the same time.

And, of course, there’s Michelle Obama. The former first lady has repeatedly said she has no plans to run for office, but she’s filled arenas and influenced the political conversation as she’s promoted her memoir, “Becoming.”

Ahead of a 2020 primary that could pit as many as two dozen Democrats against one another, the books offer potential presidential candidates an early opportunity to introduce themselves to voters in a favorable light.

“Every campaign book has to figure out a way in the predictable tsunami of campaign books that will be coming for the 2020 election to distinguish their book and their product and to extend their brand,” said Steve Ross, who formerly led Random House’s Crown division and worked with authors including former President Barack Obama.

It’s a strategy that has served presidential hopefuls from Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump, who wrote or authorized books that served as platforms for ideas and shaping their image.

John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” came out in 1955, when he was in his late 30s, and its sketches of political figures who made unpopular decisions presented him as a serious thinker who, like his subjects, would risk his career for the right cause.

Sen. John McCain’s career was influenced, in part, by his acclaimed memoir “Faith of My Fathers,” which came out in 1999, around the time of his first presidential run. It marked the first time he wrote at length about his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, which helped define his public identity.

The deeply personal exploration of race in Barack Obama’s “Dreams from My Father” propelled him onto the national scene when it was republished during his 2004 Senate campaign. His follow-up, “The Audacity of Hope,” mixed policy ideas and personal reflections to become a vital part of his successful 2008 presidential campaign.

Ross, who is now the president of the Steve Ross Agency LLC, said the quality of the writing is key to a campaign book’s success. If a book is well-written, he said, “it’s like selling out a theater with a two-hour biopic about your life that’s directed by you and starring you, the politician.”

“There are a lot of advantages for both the publisher and for the candidate to have a book as a narrative product,” he added. “They can’t control what The Washington Post and The New York Times and Fox News is going to say about them, but they can control what’s between the covers.”

With book authorship comes the opportunity for would-be candidates to travel to promote not only their book but also their strategy for the country, said Michael Steel, who was an adviser to former House Speaker John Boehner and to Jeb Bush’s 2016 Republican presidential campaign.

“Particularly for the higher-profile potential candidates, it’s an opportunity to get out there and talk about your vision and your record — and it’s particularly good because in addition to political news outlets, you can talk to softer-edged media outlets,” Steel said. “You can go on ‘The View,’ you can go on the ‘Today’ show, you can go on radio stations across the country and talk about the book.”

Gillibrand appeared on “The View” in November to promote her book, which contains stories of women who fought for the right to vote. In the interview, she said the book was for “little boys and little girls to understand what leadership looks like.”

As expected, she was asked about her own aspirations.

Calling it a “very important moral question,” Gillibrand told the hosts that she believed she’d been called to fight “as hard as I possibly can” to restore decency and integrity to the country and that she was considering a run.

Steel drew a distinction between the flurry of books that are being released as candidates consider launching campaigns and the books that are released before a presidential run is officially in the works.

“The books that are written before a candidate decides to run are often far more revealing about their actual character and personality and background,” Steel said. “Those are also the ones that can occasionally reveal things that the person probably wouldn’t have revealed if they were planning to run for president.”
…

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Monday the Trump administration wants to end subsidies for electric cars and other items, including renewable energy sources.

Asked about plans after General Motors announced U.S. plant closings and layoffs last week, Kudlow pointed to the $2,500-to-$7,500 tax credit for consumers who buy plug-in electric vehicles, including those made by GM, under federal law.

“As a matter of our policy, we want to end all of those subsidies,” Kudlow said. “And by the way, other subsidies that were imposed during the Obama administration, we are ending, whether it’s for renewables and so forth.”

Asked about a timeline, he said: “It’s just all going to end in the near future. I don’t know whether it will end in 2020 or 2021.”

The tax credits are capped by Congress at 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer, after which the subsidy phases out. GM has said it expects to hit the threshold by the end of 2018, which means under the current law, its tax credit scheme would end in 2020. Tesla said in July it had hit the threshold.

Other automakers may not hit the cap for several years.

Experts say the White House cannot change the cap unilaterally. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened to eliminate subsidies for GM in retaliation for the company’s decision.

Kudlow made clear any changes in subsidies would not just affect GM.

“I think legally you just can’t,” he said.

Democrats will take control of the U.S. House in January and are unlikely to agree to end subsidies for electric cars and many have been pushing for additional incentives.

Tesla and GM have lobbied Congress for months to lift the cap on electric vehicles or make other changes, but face an uphill battle make changes before the current Congress expires.

In October, Senator Dean Heller proposed lifting the current cap on electric vehicles eligible for tax credits but phase out the credit for the entire industry in 2022. Two other senators in September proposed lifting the per manufacturer credit and extending the benefit for 10 years.

Also in October, Senator John Barrasso a Republican who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, proposed legislation to end the EV tax credit entirely.
…

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Monday the Trump administration wants to end subsidies for electric cars and other items, including renewable energy sources.

Asked about plans after General Motors announced U.S. plant closings and layoffs last week, Kudlow pointed to the $2,500-to-$7,500 tax credit for consumers who buy plug-in electric vehicles, including those made by GM, under federal law.

“As a matter of our policy, we want to end all of those subsidies,” Kudlow said. “And by the way, other subsidies that were imposed during the Obama administration, we are ending, whether it’s for renewables and so forth.”

Asked about a timeline, he said: “It’s just all going to end in the near future. I don’t know whether it will end in 2020 or 2021.”

The tax credits are capped by Congress at 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer, after which the subsidy phases out. GM has said it expects to hit the threshold by the end of 2018, which means under the current law, its tax credit scheme would end in 2020. Tesla said in July it had hit the threshold.

Other automakers may not hit the cap for several years.

Experts say the White House cannot change the cap unilaterally. U.S. President Donald Trump last week threatened to eliminate subsidies for GM in retaliation for the company’s decision.

Kudlow made clear any changes in subsidies would not just affect GM.

“I think legally you just can’t,” he said.

Democrats will take control of the U.S. House in January and are unlikely to agree to end subsidies for electric cars and many have been pushing for additional incentives.

Tesla and GM have lobbied Congress for months to lift the cap on electric vehicles or make other changes, but face an uphill battle make changes before the current Congress expires.

In October, Senator Dean Heller proposed lifting the current cap on electric vehicles eligible for tax credits but phase out the credit for the entire industry in 2022. Two other senators in September proposed lifting the per manufacturer credit and extending the benefit for 10 years.

Also in October, Senator John Barrasso a Republican who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, proposed legislation to end the EV tax credit entirely.
…

Former FBI director James Comey has reached a deal to testify privately to the House Judiciary Committee, backing off his legal fight for an open hearing, his attorney said Sunday.

Comey, whose lawyers went to court to challenge a congressional subpoena, said in a tweet that it was “hard to protect my rights without being in contempt.”

As part of a deal with legislators, Comey has been told that he is free to speak about the questioning afterward and that a transcript would be released 24 hours after he testifies, his attorney, David Kelley, said.

Comey’s lawyers told a federal judge on Friday that the interview should be done in a public setting because they fear that statements from a closed-door interview would be selectively leaked. A lawyer for Congress, however, argued that committees can conduct investigations however they please and Comey had no right to refuse a subpoena or demand a public hearing.

Comey is expected to be questioned about decisions made by the FBI in 2016, including a call not to recommend criminal charges against Democrat Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server and the FBI’s investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Republican Donald Trump’s campaign. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.

The interview is scheduled for Friday and Comey will be “free to make any or all of that transcript public as he is free to share with the public any of the questions asked and testimony given during the interview,” Kelley said.

Because of the deal, Comey has agreed to withdraw his challenge to the subpoena. A judge had been set to rule on the matter on Monday.

The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, decried Comey’s use of “baseless litigation” and called it an “attempt to run out the clock on this Congress,” a reference to the few weeks left before Democrats take control.

A transcript of the interview will be released “as soon as possible after the interview, in the name of our combined desire for transparency,” Goodlatte said.

 
…

Former FBI director James Comey has reached a deal to testify privately to the House Judiciary Committee, backing off his legal fight for an open hearing, his attorney said Sunday.

Comey, whose lawyers went to court to challenge a congressional subpoena, said in a tweet that it was “hard to protect my rights without being in contempt.”

As part of a deal with legislators, Comey has been told that he is free to speak about the questioning afterward and that a transcript would be released 24 hours after he testifies, his attorney, David Kelley, said.

Comey’s lawyers told a federal judge on Friday that the interview should be done in a public setting because they fear that statements from a closed-door interview would be selectively leaked. A lawyer for Congress, however, argued that committees can conduct investigations however they please and Comey had no right to refuse a subpoena or demand a public hearing.

Comey is expected to be questioned about decisions made by the FBI in 2016, including a call not to recommend criminal charges against Democrat Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server and the FBI’s investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Republican Donald Trump’s campaign. Trump fired Comey in May 2017.

The interview is scheduled for Friday and Comey will be “free to make any or all of that transcript public as he is free to share with the public any of the questions asked and testimony given during the interview,” Kelley said.

Because of the deal, Comey has agreed to withdraw his challenge to the subpoena. A judge had been set to rule on the matter on Monday.

The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, decried Comey’s use of “baseless litigation” and called it an “attempt to run out the clock on this Congress,” a reference to the few weeks left before Democrats take control.

A transcript of the interview will be released “as soon as possible after the interview, in the name of our combined desire for transparency,” Goodlatte said.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday he will give formal notice to the U.S. Congress soon to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), giving six months for lawmakers to approve a new trade deal signed Friday.

“I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on his way home from Argentina.

“Just so you understand, when I do that, if for any reason we’re unable to make a deal because of Congress then Congress will have a choice” of the new deal or returning to trade rules from before 1994 when NAFTA took effect, he said.

Trump told reporters the trade rules before NAFTA “work very well.” NAFTA allows any country to formally withdraw with six months notice.

Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto signed a new trade agreement Friday known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Democrats skeptical

Trump’s decision to set in motion a possible end to largely free trade in North America comes amid some skepticism from Democrats about the new trade deal.

The U.S. landscape will shift significantly in January when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, after winning midterm elections in November.

Presumptive incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi described the deal as a “work in progress” that lacks worker and environment protections.

“This is not something where we have a piece of paper we can say yes or no to,” she said at a news conference Friday, noting that Mexico had yet to pass a law on wages and working conditions.

Other Democrats, backed by unions that oppose the pact, have called for stronger enforcement provisions for new labor and environmental standards, arguing that USMCA’s state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism is too weak.

Can president act without Congress?

A 2016 congressional research report said there is a debate over whether a president can withdraw from a trade deal without the consent of Congress, and there is no historical precedent for the unilateral withdrawal from a free trade deal by a president that had been approved by Congress.

The issue could ultimately be decided by the U.S. courts. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said last year that exiting NAFTA without a new deal could devastate American agriculture, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and “be an economic, political and national-security disaster.”

The leaders of the three countries agreed on a deal in principle to replace NAFTA, which governs more than $1.2 trillion of mutual trade, after acrimonious negotiations concluded Sept. 30.

Target of campaign

Trump had vowed to revamp NAFTA during his 2016 presidential election campaign. He threatened to tear it up and withdraw the United States completely at times during the negotiation, which would have left trade between the three neighbors in disarray.

The three were still bickering over the finer points of the deal just hours before officials were to sit down and sign it.

Legislators in Canada and Mexico must still approve the pact.

Trump had forced Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the 24-year-old agreement because he said it encouraged U.S. companies to move jobs to low-wage Mexico.

U.S. objections to Canada’s protected internal market for dairy products was a major challenge facing negotiators during the talks, and Trump repeatedly demanded concessions and accused Canada of hurting U.S. farmers.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday he will give formal notice to the U.S. Congress soon to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), giving six months for lawmakers to approve a new trade deal signed Friday.

“I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on his way home from Argentina.

“Just so you understand, when I do that, if for any reason we’re unable to make a deal because of Congress then Congress will have a choice” of the new deal or returning to trade rules from before 1994 when NAFTA took effect, he said.

Trump told reporters the trade rules before NAFTA “work very well.” NAFTA allows any country to formally withdraw with six months notice.

Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto signed a new trade agreement Friday known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Democrats skeptical

Trump’s decision to set in motion a possible end to largely free trade in North America comes amid some skepticism from Democrats about the new trade deal.

The U.S. landscape will shift significantly in January when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, after winning midterm elections in November.

Presumptive incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi described the deal as a “work in progress” that lacks worker and environment protections.

“This is not something where we have a piece of paper we can say yes or no to,” she said at a news conference Friday, noting that Mexico had yet to pass a law on wages and working conditions.

Other Democrats, backed by unions that oppose the pact, have called for stronger enforcement provisions for new labor and environmental standards, arguing that USMCA’s state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism is too weak.

Can president act without Congress?

A 2016 congressional research report said there is a debate over whether a president can withdraw from a trade deal without the consent of Congress, and there is no historical precedent for the unilateral withdrawal from a free trade deal by a president that had been approved by Congress.

The issue could ultimately be decided by the U.S. courts. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said last year that exiting NAFTA without a new deal could devastate American agriculture, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and “be an economic, political and national-security disaster.”

The leaders of the three countries agreed on a deal in principle to replace NAFTA, which governs more than $1.2 trillion of mutual trade, after acrimonious negotiations concluded Sept. 30.

Target of campaign

Trump had vowed to revamp NAFTA during his 2016 presidential election campaign. He threatened to tear it up and withdraw the United States completely at times during the negotiation, which would have left trade between the three neighbors in disarray.

The three were still bickering over the finer points of the deal just hours before officials were to sit down and sign it.

Legislators in Canada and Mexico must still approve the pact.

Trump had forced Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the 24-year-old agreement because he said it encouraged U.S. companies to move jobs to low-wage Mexico.

U.S. objections to Canada’s protected internal market for dairy products was a major challenge facing negotiators during the talks, and Trump repeatedly demanded concessions and accused Canada of hurting U.S. farmers.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday he is likely to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in January or February and that three sites for their second meeting are under consideration.

“We’re getting along very well. We have a good relationship,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from a G-20 summit in Argentina.

Trump added that at some point he will invite Kim to the United States.

The two sides have been engaged in talks on the leaders’ second meeting after the first, unprecedented one in Singapore in June, Reuters reported in October, citing a senior official.

The White House said in a statement Saturday after Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that they and Kim will strive “to see a nuclear free Korean Peninsula.”

The statement said Xi and Trump “agreed that great progress has been made with respect to North Korea.”

Concrete plan

Last month, Vice President Mike Pence said Trump would push for a concrete plan outlining Pyongyang’s moves to end its arms programs.

Pence told NBC News last month the United States would not require Pyongyang to provide a complete list of nuclear weapons and locations before the second summit, but that the meeting must produce a concrete plan.

“I think it will be absolutely imperative in this next summit that we come away with a plan for identifying all of the weapons in question, identifying all the development sites, allowing for inspections of the sites and the plan for dismantling nuclear weapons,” Pence said.

Pence said last month it was essential that international sanctions pressure be maintained on North Korea until its complete denuclearization was achieved.

North Korea had been angered by Washington’s refusal to ease sanctions and has warned it could resume development of its nuclear program if the United States did not drop its campaign.

North Korean missile bases

A U.S. think tank said last month it had identified at least 13 of an estimated 20 active, undeclared missile bases inside North Korea, underscoring the challenge for American negotiators hoping to persuade Kim to give up his weapons programs.

North Korea had entered into agreements with regional powers in 1994 and in 2005 to dismantle its nuclear program in return for economic benefits and diplomatic rewards, but those deals broke down after Pyongyang clandestinely continued to pursue building weapons of mass destruction.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Saturday he is likely to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in January or February and that three sites for their second meeting are under consideration.

“We’re getting along very well. We have a good relationship,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from a G-20 summit in Argentina.

Trump added that at some point he will invite Kim to the United States.

The two sides have been engaged in talks on the leaders’ second meeting after the first, unprecedented one in Singapore in June, Reuters reported in October, citing a senior official.

The White House said in a statement Saturday after Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that they and Kim will strive “to see a nuclear free Korean Peninsula.”

The statement said Xi and Trump “agreed that great progress has been made with respect to North Korea.”

Concrete plan

Last month, Vice President Mike Pence said Trump would push for a concrete plan outlining Pyongyang’s moves to end its arms programs.

Pence told NBC News last month the United States would not require Pyongyang to provide a complete list of nuclear weapons and locations before the second summit, but that the meeting must produce a concrete plan.

“I think it will be absolutely imperative in this next summit that we come away with a plan for identifying all of the weapons in question, identifying all the development sites, allowing for inspections of the sites and the plan for dismantling nuclear weapons,” Pence said.

Pence said last month it was essential that international sanctions pressure be maintained on North Korea until its complete denuclearization was achieved.

North Korea had been angered by Washington’s refusal to ease sanctions and has warned it could resume development of its nuclear program if the United States did not drop its campaign.

North Korean missile bases

A U.S. think tank said last month it had identified at least 13 of an estimated 20 active, undeclared missile bases inside North Korea, underscoring the challenge for American negotiators hoping to persuade Kim to give up his weapons programs.

North Korea had entered into agreements with regional powers in 1994 and in 2005 to dismantle its nuclear program in return for economic benefits and diplomatic rewards, but those deals broke down after Pyongyang clandestinely continued to pursue building weapons of mass destruction.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump says he is willing to agree to a two-week extension of government funding to avoid conflicts with the ceremonies honoring the late President George H.W. Bush.

Speaking on board Air force One on his way home from the G-20 summit in Argentina, Trump said congressional leaders have asked for the extension because of Bush’s funeral on Wednesday and other events this week honoring the country’s 41st president.  Trump said he “would absolutely consider it and probably give it.”

Funding for some government operations is currently set to run out on Friday, although much of the U.S. government has already been funded through next September.

Trump and lawmakers have sparred in recent days over his demand for $5 billion in funding for a wall along the southern U.S. border with Mexico to thwart illegal migration of Central Americans trying to enter the United States.

The U.S. leader has threatened a partial government shutdown if the new wall funding is not included in the spending measures lawmakers are now debating.  But so far lawmakers have only agreed to spend $1.6 billion more for border security.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump says he is willing to agree to a two-week extension of government funding to avoid conflicts with the ceremonies honoring the late President George H.W. Bush.

Speaking on board Air force One on his way home from the G-20 summit in Argentina, Trump said congressional leaders have asked for the extension because of Bush’s funeral on Wednesday and other events this week honoring the country’s 41st president.  Trump said he “would absolutely consider it and probably give it.”

Funding for some government operations is currently set to run out on Friday, although much of the U.S. government has already been funded through next September.

Trump and lawmakers have sparred in recent days over his demand for $5 billion in funding for a wall along the southern U.S. border with Mexico to thwart illegal migration of Central Americans trying to enter the United States.

The U.S. leader has threatened a partial government shutdown if the new wall funding is not included in the spending measures lawmakers are now debating.  But so far lawmakers have only agreed to spend $1.6 billion more for border security.

 
…

Condolences and praise began to pour in from former presidents and political figures around the world for former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, who died Friday:

“George H.W. Bush was a man of the highest character and the best dad a son or daughter could ask for,” former President George W. Bush said in a statement following the announcement of his father’s death.

U.S. President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, praised the 41st president’s ability to inspire “generations of his fellow Americans to public service – to be, in his words, ‘a thousand points of light’ illuminating the greatness, hope and opportunity of America to the world.”

The Trumps added, “Along with his full life of service to country, we will remember former President Bush for his devotion to family – especially the love of his life, Barbara.”

Former President Jimmy Carter said he and his wife, Rosalynn, “are deeply saddened by the death of former President George H.W. Bush. His administration was marked by grace, civility, and social conscience. Through his Points of Light initiative and other projects, he espoused a uniquely American volunteer spirit, fostering bipartisan support for citizen service and inspiring millions to embrace community volunteerism as a cherished responsibility.”

Former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, released a joint statement, saying, “Bush’s life is a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling.”

The Obamas recalled that Bush once said he got more of a kick out of being one of the founders of the YMCA in Midland, Texas, in 1952 than almost anything he had ever done. “What a testament to the qualities that make this country great,” the Obamas said.

“Few Americans have been – or will ever be – able to match President Bush’s record of service to the United States and the joy he took every day from it,” said Bill and Hillary Clinton, the former president and secretary of state, respectively.  They noted Bush’s “military service in World War II, to his work in Congress, the United Nations, China, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Vice Presidency and the Presidency, where he worked to move the post-Cold War world toward greater unity, peace, and freedom.”

​James Baker, Bush’s former secretary of state, said that in each position Bush held, he “led with strength, integrity, compassion and humility – characteristics that define a truly great man and effective leader.”

John Sununu, who was Bush’s chief of staff, wrote in The Washington Post on Saturday, “Although he (Bush) would never be comfortable taking credit for the success of his life, most historians now agree that Bush was a great president who accomplished great things. He helped make America safer and the world more stable and more prosperous than ever before in history.”

Kuwait’s ruling emir, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, said Bush tried to “create a new international order based on justice and equality among nations” and never “forgot the Kuwaiti people and will remain in their memory.”

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Bush worked together to end the Cold War in the late 1980s to early 1990s through such things as U.S.-Russia arms control agreements, including the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. He sent condolences to the Bush family, saying they “deeply appreciated the attention, kindness and simplicity typical of George and Barbara Bush, as well as the rest of their large, friendly family.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, via the Kremlin website, said Saturday, “A distinguished man has passed away. One who served his country for his entire life, with a weapon in his hands during wartime and in high office during peacetime.”
…

Condolences and praise began to pour in from former presidents and political figures around the world for former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, who died Friday:

“George H.W. Bush was a man of the highest character and the best dad a son or daughter could ask for,” former President George W. Bush said in a statement following the announcement of his father’s death.

U.S. President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, praised the 41st president’s ability to inspire “generations of his fellow Americans to public service – to be, in his words, ‘a thousand points of light’ illuminating the greatness, hope and opportunity of America to the world.”

The Trumps added, “Along with his full life of service to country, we will remember former President Bush for his devotion to family – especially the love of his life, Barbara.”

Former President Jimmy Carter said he and his wife, Rosalynn, “are deeply saddened by the death of former President George H.W. Bush. His administration was marked by grace, civility, and social conscience. Through his Points of Light initiative and other projects, he espoused a uniquely American volunteer spirit, fostering bipartisan support for citizen service and inspiring millions to embrace community volunteerism as a cherished responsibility.”

Former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, released a joint statement, saying, “Bush’s life is a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling.”

The Obamas recalled that Bush once said he got more of a kick out of being one of the founders of the YMCA in Midland, Texas, in 1952 than almost anything he had ever done. “What a testament to the qualities that make this country great,” the Obamas said.

“Few Americans have been – or will ever be – able to match President Bush’s record of service to the United States and the joy he took every day from it,” said Bill and Hillary Clinton, the former president and secretary of state, respectively.  They noted Bush’s “military service in World War II, to his work in Congress, the United Nations, China, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Vice Presidency and the Presidency, where he worked to move the post-Cold War world toward greater unity, peace, and freedom.”

​James Baker, Bush’s former secretary of state, said that in each position Bush held, he “led with strength, integrity, compassion and humility – characteristics that define a truly great man and effective leader.”

John Sununu, who was Bush’s chief of staff, wrote in The Washington Post on Saturday, “Although he (Bush) would never be comfortable taking credit for the success of his life, most historians now agree that Bush was a great president who accomplished great things. He helped make America safer and the world more stable and more prosperous than ever before in history.”

Kuwait’s ruling emir, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, said Bush tried to “create a new international order based on justice and equality among nations” and never “forgot the Kuwaiti people and will remain in their memory.”

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Bush worked together to end the Cold War in the late 1980s to early 1990s through such things as U.S.-Russia arms control agreements, including the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. He sent condolences to the Bush family, saying they “deeply appreciated the attention, kindness and simplicity typical of George and Barbara Bush, as well as the rest of their large, friendly family.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, via the Kremlin website, said Saturday, “A distinguished man has passed away. One who served his country for his entire life, with a weapon in his hands during wartime and in high office during peacetime.”
…

U.S. lawmakers are urging President Donald Trump to raise the issue of China’s mass internment of Muslim ethnic minorities when he meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G-20 summit in Argentina. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington.
…

U.S. lawmakers are urging President Donald Trump to raise the issue of China’s mass internment of Muslim ethnic minorities when he meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G-20 summit in Argentina. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports from Washington.
…

Significant dates in the life of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush.

1924 — George H.W. Bush is born June 12 in Milton, Massachusetts, to Prescott Bush and Dorothy Walker Bush

1941 — A few weeks after the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, Bush meets Barbara Pierce at a Christmas dance.

1942 — Enlists in the U.S. Navy on the day he turns 18 years old.

1943 — Becomes the youngest commissioned pilot in the naval air service.

1945 — Marries Barbara Pierce in January while on leave. Bush is honorably discharged from the Navy in September.

1948 — Graduates from Yale and accepts a job in the oil industry and moves his family to Texas.

1952 — Co-founds Zapata Petroleum. Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, is elected to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut.

1962 — Becomes chairman of the Harris County Republican Committee. His father retires from the Senate.

1964 — Is unsuccessful in his run for seat in the U.S. Senate.

1966 — Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Becomes the first freshman in 63 years to be offered a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee.

1970 — Gives up his congressional seat to again run for the Senate, but is defeated by Democrat Lloyd Bentsen.

1971 — Appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations by President Richard Nixon.

1974 — Appointed to be chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in China by President Gerald Ford.

1976 — Is named Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

1979 — Declares his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.

1980 — Fails to win the nomination of the Republican Party but is picked as Ronald Reagan’s vice president. Reagan-Bush beat Carter-Mondale in a landslide.

1981 — Is sworn in as the 43rd vice president.

1987 — Announces he will run for president.

​1989 — Is sworn in as the 41st president of the United States. On Dec. 20, the United States invades Panama, captures dictator Manuel Noriega and brings him to the U.S. to stand trial for drug-trafficking.

1991 — The United States and its allies launch a military operation to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Operation Desert Storm begins with aerial and naval bombardment, followed by a ground assault five weeks later. A cease-fire is declared 100 hours after the start of the ground assault.

1992 — Bush announces his candidacy for re-election. In November, he is defeated by Bill Clinton.

2001 — Attends the inauguration of his son, George W. Bush, as the 43rd president of the United States. It is the first time, since John and John Quincy Adams almost 200 years earlier, that a father and son have been elected president.

2011 — Is awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor, the highest civilian honor in the United States, by President Barack Obama.

2014 — Fulfills a long-standing promise to skydive on his 90th birthday. It is the eighth time the former president has made a parachute jump, including on his 80th and 85th birthdays.

2018 — Dies Nov. 30, age 94
…

George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States, a man born of patrician pedigree, but with a sense of honor, duty and service to his country that played out over the last 60 years of the 20th century, died Friday at age 94.

In a life on the world stage and at the highest levels of the American political scene, Bush lost and won elections before becoming the American leader in 1989, and then, with a declining U.S. economy and unemployment rising, was turned out of office after four years in the White House, losing his re-election bid in 1992.

He marked the start of his presidency with a sweeping inaugural declaration that “a new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn; for in man’s heart, if not in fact, the day of the dictator is over. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree.”

His pronouncement soon proved prophetic, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union occurring early in his presidency. Bush met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, their Malta talks viewed as an important stepping stone toward the two leaders signing the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

During his four years in the White House, Bush ordered a military operation in Panama to overthrow its drug-trafficking leader, Manuel Noriega. Later, he sent troops to the Mideast to repel Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his attempted takeover of oil-rich Kuwait. It was perhaps the high point of Bush’s presidency, his approval rating among U.S. voters reaching a record 89 percent, with a fireworks display lighting the night-time sky over Washington to salute the successful mission.

Upon later reflection, Bush’s foray into Kuwait was considered as something less than a total victory in that many Iraqi troops were pushed back into their homeland, rather than captured or killed, and Hussein remained in power, only overthrown years later in the 2003 U.S. invasion ordered by Bush’s son, President George W. Bush.

The elder Bush said he rejected an overthrow of the Iraqi government because it would have “incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.”

Early commitment to country

Bush’s commitment to his country came early in life. He was a naval fighter pilot in World War II, attacking Japanese targets at the age of 18, victorious in one of the war’s largest air battles, the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Later, he completed one mission after his plane was hit by flak, leaving his engine on fire. He bailed out of the aircraft and was rescued in the waters off the Bonin Islands.

In his rise to the presidency, Bush held a variety of key positions over the years, often deemed by Republican presidents as the most qualified man in U.S. public life. He served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the early 1970s, chairman of the Republican National Committee a short time later, then as chief U.S. envoy to China in the mid-1970s. Later, he was director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

He was not always a successful politician, losing a 1964 election for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas, where he later founded an oil company. He won an election for a seat in the House of Representatives before losing another bid for a Senate seat. That loss set him on a path to the string of high-level appointments in the 1970s.

​Reagan’s running mate

Bush sought the 1980 Republican presidential nomination but lost it to then-California governor, Ronald Reagan, who tapped Bush as his vice presidential running mate in two successful national campaigns, in 1980 and again four years later.

With Reagan barred by the U.S. Constitution from serving more than two terms, Bush plotted a presidential run for 1988, ultimately defeating the Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

The campaign was marked by an infamous political television ad produced by a group supporting Bush that depicted Dukakis as weak on crime because as governor he had released on weekend furlough a convicted killer, a black man named Willie Horton, who then raped a white woman and assaulted her white fiance. Some critics viewed the ad as racist and an attempt to play on white voters’ fears of crimes committed by menacing black men.

Four years later, however, Bush lost the presidency to Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, although the two later became friends, occasionally dispatched by subsequent U.S. presidents to oversee assistance efforts after natural disasters.

​Elder statesman

In his retirement years, Bush watched as one of his sons, George W. Bush, twice won the presidency, only the second time in U.S. history that a father and son both became the U.S. leaders. Bush oversaw the opening of his presidential library in College Station, Texas, and was widely honored as an elder statesman. But on several occasions, as he was confined to a wheelchair while he battled a form of Parkinson’s disease, he had to apologize for inappropriately touching women who were standing next to him after telling a sexually suggestive joke.

Bush was married for 73 years to the former Barbara Pierce, a woman he met in his teenage years. It was the longest marriage among any U.S. presidential couples. She died at 92 in April 2018.
…

They haven’t spoken in days, not since President Donald Trump called to congratulate Nancy Pelosi on Democrats’ election night win.

But they don’t really need to. Trump and Pelosi go way back, from the time she first showed up at Trump Tower fundraising for the Democrats long before he would become president or she the House speaker. Two big-name heirs to big-city honchos — Trump and Pelosi each had fathers who were political power players in their home towns — they’ve rubbed elbows on the Manhattan social scene for years.

And despite daily barbs in Washington, he’s always “Mr. President” to her, and she’s one prominent politician he has not labeled with a derisive nickname.

Not quite friends, nor enemies, theirs is perhaps the most important relationship in Washington. If anything is to come of the new era of divided government, with a Republican president and Democratic control of the House, it will happen in the deal-making space between two of the country’s most polarizing politicians.

The day after their election night phone call, Trump and Pelosi did speak again, indirectly, across Pennsylvania Avenue.

“I really respected what Nancy said last night about bipartisanship and getting together and uniting,” Trump said in a press conference at the White House. “That’s what we should be doing.”

Pressed after his unusual public lobbying for Pelosi to become House speaker, Trump insisted he was sincere.

“A lot of people thought I was being sarcastic or I was kidding. I wasn’t. I think she deserves it,” he said. “I also believe that Nancy Pelosi and I could work together and get a lot of things done.”

Pelosi sent word back a few minutes later from her own press conference at the Capitol, which she delayed for nearly an hour as the president conducted his.

“Last night, I had a conversation with President Trump about how we could work together,” Pelosi said, noting that “building infrastructure” was one of the items they discussed.

“He talked about it during his campaign and really didn’t come through with it in his first two years in office,” she nudged. “I hope that we can do that because we want to create jobs from sea to shining sea.”

Despite all the campaign trail trash talk, both Trump and Pelosi have incentive to make some deals.

The president could use a domestic policy win heading into his own re-election in 2020, alongside his regular railing against illegal immigration, the “witch hunt” of the Russia investigation or other issues that emerge from his tweets.

Democrats, too, need to show Americans they can do more than resist the Trump White House. It’s no surprise that two of the top Democratic priorities in the new Congress, infrastructure investment and lowering health care costs, dovetail with promises Trump made to voters, but has not yet fulfilled.

“I do think there’s opportunities to pass legislation,” said former White House legislative director Marc Short.

Trump has long viewed Pelosi as both a foil and a possible partner, and she sees in him the one who can sign legislation into law.

The president has told confidants that he respects Pelosi’s deal-making prowess and her ability to hang on to power in the face of a series of challenges from the left wing of the party, according to four White House officials and Republicans close to the White House. The officials were not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations and requested anonymity.

He told one ally this month that he respected Pelosi “as a fighter” and that he viewed her as someone with whom he could negotiate.

“The president respects her,” said Short.

Short described the interaction between Pelosi and Trump during a 2017 meeting with other congressional leaders at the White House to prevent a government shutdown. “They were throwing pros and cons back at each other,” he said.

“The question I can’t answer is to what extent will Democrats give Pelosi political bandwidth” to strike deals, Short said. He pointed to potential areas of agreement like infrastructure, drug prices and prison reform.

But part of Trump’s push for Pelosi to return to power was more nakedly political. Pelosi has long been a popular Republican target, spurring countless fundraising efforts and attack ads. And Trump has told advisers that, if needed, he would make her the face of the opposition in Democratic party until the 2020 presidential field sorts itself out.

Pelosi’s name draws some of the biggest jeers at his rallies and he believes that “she could be Hillary” in terms of a Clinton-like figure to rally Republicans against, according to one of the advisers familiar with the president’s private conversations.

At the same time, Trump has not publicly branded Pelosi with a mocking nickname. She’s no “Cryin’” Chuck Schumer, as he calls the top Senate Democrat, or “Little” Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee or “Low IQ” Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who will chair the Financial Services Committee.

On whether Trump likes Pelosi as ally or adversary, Short said, “I don’t think those are mutually exclusive.”

Pelosi, perhaps more than her Republican counterparts — outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — became an early observer, and adapter, to the Trump style of governing.

When Trump and Democrats were trying to broker an immigration deal in September 2017, she suggested he could tweet his assurances to the young Dreamers. And he did.

Around the same time when Trump and congressional leaders convened at the White House to avoid a federal government shutdown, Republicans and Trump’s own Cabinet team pressed for their preferred solution. But Pelosi kept asking a simple question: How many Republican votes could they bring to the table? When it was clear they could not bring enough for passage, Trump intervened and agreed with Democrats “Chuck and Nancy,” as he came to call them.

Votes, Pelosi explained later, were the “currency of the realm.” Trump, as a businessman, she said, got it.

Pelosi is poised to become House speaker again if she wins her election in January. Asked this week how Trump might react to having a woman in power, Pelosi recalled the first time she held the office, when George W. Bush was president, in 2007.

Bush would call her “No. 3,” she said, a reference to the speaker’s spot in the presidential succession line, after the president and the vice president.

“He treated me and the office I hold with great respect,” she said. “I would expect nothing less than that from this President of the United States.”
…

They haven’t spoken in days, not since President Donald Trump called to congratulate Nancy Pelosi on Democrats’ election night win.

But they don’t really need to. Trump and Pelosi go way back, from the time she first showed up at Trump Tower fundraising for the Democrats long before he would become president or she the House speaker. Two big-name heirs to big-city honchos — Trump and Pelosi each had fathers who were political power players in their home towns — they’ve rubbed elbows on the Manhattan social scene for years.

And despite daily barbs in Washington, he’s always “Mr. President” to her, and she’s one prominent politician he has not labeled with a derisive nickname.

Not quite friends, nor enemies, theirs is perhaps the most important relationship in Washington. If anything is to come of the new era of divided government, with a Republican president and Democratic control of the House, it will happen in the deal-making space between two of the country’s most polarizing politicians.

The day after their election night phone call, Trump and Pelosi did speak again, indirectly, across Pennsylvania Avenue.

“I really respected what Nancy said last night about bipartisanship and getting together and uniting,” Trump said in a press conference at the White House. “That’s what we should be doing.”

Pressed after his unusual public lobbying for Pelosi to become House speaker, Trump insisted he was sincere.

“A lot of people thought I was being sarcastic or I was kidding. I wasn’t. I think she deserves it,” he said. “I also believe that Nancy Pelosi and I could work together and get a lot of things done.”

Pelosi sent word back a few minutes later from her own press conference at the Capitol, which she delayed for nearly an hour as the president conducted his.

“Last night, I had a conversation with President Trump about how we could work together,” Pelosi said, noting that “building infrastructure” was one of the items they discussed.

“He talked about it during his campaign and really didn’t come through with it in his first two years in office,” she nudged. “I hope that we can do that because we want to create jobs from sea to shining sea.”

Despite all the campaign trail trash talk, both Trump and Pelosi have incentive to make some deals.

The president could use a domestic policy win heading into his own re-election in 2020, alongside his regular railing against illegal immigration, the “witch hunt” of the Russia investigation or other issues that emerge from his tweets.

Democrats, too, need to show Americans they can do more than resist the Trump White House. It’s no surprise that two of the top Democratic priorities in the new Congress, infrastructure investment and lowering health care costs, dovetail with promises Trump made to voters, but has not yet fulfilled.

“I do think there’s opportunities to pass legislation,” said former White House legislative director Marc Short.

Trump has long viewed Pelosi as both a foil and a possible partner, and she sees in him the one who can sign legislation into law.

The president has told confidants that he respects Pelosi’s deal-making prowess and her ability to hang on to power in the face of a series of challenges from the left wing of the party, according to four White House officials and Republicans close to the White House. The officials were not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations and requested anonymity.

He told one ally this month that he respected Pelosi “as a fighter” and that he viewed her as someone with whom he could negotiate.

“The president respects her,” said Short.

Short described the interaction between Pelosi and Trump during a 2017 meeting with other congressional leaders at the White House to prevent a government shutdown. “They were throwing pros and cons back at each other,” he said.

“The question I can’t answer is to what extent will Democrats give Pelosi political bandwidth” to strike deals, Short said. He pointed to potential areas of agreement like infrastructure, drug prices and prison reform.

But part of Trump’s push for Pelosi to return to power was more nakedly political. Pelosi has long been a popular Republican target, spurring countless fundraising efforts and attack ads. And Trump has told advisers that, if needed, he would make her the face of the opposition in Democratic party until the 2020 presidential field sorts itself out.

Pelosi’s name draws some of the biggest jeers at his rallies and he believes that “she could be Hillary” in terms of a Clinton-like figure to rally Republicans against, according to one of the advisers familiar with the president’s private conversations.

At the same time, Trump has not publicly branded Pelosi with a mocking nickname. She’s no “Cryin’” Chuck Schumer, as he calls the top Senate Democrat, or “Little” Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee or “Low IQ” Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who will chair the Financial Services Committee.

On whether Trump likes Pelosi as ally or adversary, Short said, “I don’t think those are mutually exclusive.”

Pelosi, perhaps more than her Republican counterparts — outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — became an early observer, and adapter, to the Trump style of governing.

When Trump and Democrats were trying to broker an immigration deal in September 2017, she suggested he could tweet his assurances to the young Dreamers. And he did.

Around the same time when Trump and congressional leaders convened at the White House to avoid a federal government shutdown, Republicans and Trump’s own Cabinet team pressed for their preferred solution. But Pelosi kept asking a simple question: How many Republican votes could they bring to the table? When it was clear they could not bring enough for passage, Trump intervened and agreed with Democrats “Chuck and Nancy,” as he came to call them.

Votes, Pelosi explained later, were the “currency of the realm.” Trump, as a businessman, she said, got it.

Pelosi is poised to become House speaker again if she wins her election in January. Asked this week how Trump might react to having a woman in power, Pelosi recalled the first time she held the office, when George W. Bush was president, in 2007.

Bush would call her “No. 3,” she said, a reference to the speaker’s spot in the presidential succession line, after the president and the vice president.

“He treated me and the office I hold with great respect,” she said. “I would expect nothing less than that from this President of the United States.”
…