U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday he will force a vote soon on a resolution to disapprove the Trump administration’s decision to relax sanctions on three Russian companies connected to oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

“I have concluded that the Treasury Department’s proposal is flawed and fails to sufficiently limit Oleg Deripaska’s control and influence of these companies and the Senate should move to block this misguided effort by the Trump administration and keep these sanctions in place,” Schumer said in a news release.

The U.S. Treasury announced Dec. 20 that it would lift sanctions imposed in April on the core businesses of Deripaska, including aluminum giant Rusal its parent En+ and power firm EuroSibEnergo, watering down the toughest penalties imposed since Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

After lobbying by European governments that followed the imposition of sanctions, Washington postponed enforcement of the sanctions and started talks with Deripaska’s team on removing Rusal and En+ from the blacklist if he ceded control of Rusal.

The businessman, who has close ties to the Kremlin, also had ties with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, documents have showed.

An FBI agent said in an affidavit attached to a 2017 search warrant unsealed earlier this year that he had reviewed tax returns for a company controlled by Manafort and his wife that showed a $10 million loan from a Russian lender identified as Deripaska.

On Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin insisted that the Trump administration would keep tight control on companies linked to Deripaska, despite the decision to ease restrictions.

Mnuchin said the firms would face consequences including the reimposition of sanctions if they failed to comply with the terms.

Schumer said given Deripaska’s potential involvement with Manafort, and because of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s ties with Russia has not yet concluded, “It’s all the more reason these sanctions must remain in place.”

Passage of the resolution of disapproval of Treasury’s decision would require the approval of both the Democratic-majority house and the Senate, led by Trump’s fellow Republicans who are unlikely to break with his policy.
…

The government shutdown is wreaking havoc on many Americans: Hundreds of thousands of federal employees don’t know when they’ll see their next paycheck, and low-income people who rely on the federal safety net worry about whether they’ll make ends meet should the stalemate in Washington carry on another month.

But if you’re a sportsman looking to hunt game, a gas company planning to drill offshore or a taxpayer awaiting your refund, you’re in luck: This shutdown won’t affect your plans.

All administrations get some leeway to choose which services to freeze and which to maintain when a budget standoff in Washington forces some agencies to shutter. But in the selective reopening of offices, experts say they see a willingness to cut corners, scrap prior plans and wade into legally dubious territory to mitigate the pain. Some noted the choices seem targeted at shielding the Republican-leaning voters whom Trump and his party need to stick with them.

The cumulative effect is a government shutdown — now officially the longest in U.S. history — that some Americans may find financially destabilizing and others may hardly notice.

Russell T. Vought, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the overarching message from Trump has been “to make this shutdown as painless as possible, consistent with the law.”

“We have built on past efforts within this administration not to have the shutdown be used to be weaponized against the American people,” he said.

Others say such a strategy suggests a lack of urgency and a willingness to let the political impasse in Washington drag on indefinitely.

“The strategy seems to be to keep the shutdown in place, not worry about the effect on employees and furloughed people and contractors, but where the public might be annoyed, give a little,” said Alice Rivlin, who led OMB during the 21-day shutdown in 1996, the previous recordholder for the longest in history.

That’s a clear difference between then and now, Rivlin said.

“We weren’t trying to make it better. We were trying to emphasize the pain so it would be over,” she said. “We wanted it to end. I’m not convinced the Trump administration does.”

The Trump administration earlier this week announced that the IRS will issue tax refunds during the shutdown, circumventing a 2011 decision barring the agency from distributing refunds until the Treasury Department is funded. The National Treasury Employees Union filed a lawsuit, arguing its workers are being unconstitutionally forced to return to work without pay.

Some agencies are finding creative ways to fund services they want to restore.

The administration has emphasized continued use of public lands in general, and particularly for hunters and oil and gas developers, angering environmental groups. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, using funds leftover from 2018, this week announced it will direct dozens of wildlife refuges to return staffers to work, ensuring planned activities on those lands, including organized hunts, continue.

Barbara Wainman, a spokeswoman for the agency, said most refuges have remained accessible to hunters throughout the shutdown, and the decision to staff them was made based on three criteria: resource management, high visitation and previously scheduled programming, which includes organized hunts and school field trips. Wainman said 17 of the 38 refuges have scheduled hunts that would have been canceled without the restaffing effort.

The IRS is using user fees to restore the income verification program, used by mortgage lenders to confirm the income of a borrower and considered a critical tool for the banking industry. After national parks were left open but unstaffed, causing damage to delicate ecosystems, the National Park Service announced it would take “an extraordinary step” and use visitation fees to staff some of the major parks. And despite the shutdown, the Bureau of Land Management is continuing work related to drilling efforts in Alaska.

Trump has refused to sign spending bills for nine of the 15 Cabinet-level departments until Congress approves his request for $5.7 billion in funding to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats have refused. The president initially said he would be “proud” to own the partial shutdown, but he quickly shifted blame onto Democratic leaders and has flirted with taking some extraordinary measures to find money for the wall. Although most Republicans have stood by the president, others have expressed discomfort with the strategy.

The focus on services that reach rural voters, influential industries and voters’ pocketbooks is intended to protect Republicans from blowback, said Barry Anderson, who served as assistant director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1988 to 1998.

During the 1996 shutdown, Anderson said, he and others met each day to review which offices and services should be deemed essential. He said tax refunds never made the cut.

“A government agency may employ services in advance of appropriations only when there’s a reasonable connection between the functions being performed and the safety of human life or protection of property,” he said. “How does issuing tax refunds fall under either of those categories? It’s not a human life or property issue. I don’t know the proper word: surprised, aghast, flabbergasted.

“This,” he said, “is to keep Republican senators’ phones silent.”

OMB has held regular conference calls with agencies and is fielding a high volume of requests for services they’d like to resume. In addition, OMB officials are intentionally working to legally reopen as much of the government as possible, according to a senior administration official, adding that agencies are permitted to update their lapse plans as the shutdown progresses. The official was not authorized to discuss the internal discussions publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Across the government, agencies are scrambling. The Food and Drug Administration has scaled back on food inspections. The Department of Agriculture recently announced that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food aid to nearly 40 million low-income Americans, will continue to operate through February because of a loophole in the short-term spending bill, which expired Dec. 22. But should the shutdown stretch into March, the department’s reserves for the program, $3 billion, won’t cover a month of benefits for all who need them. Other feeding programs, such as school lunch, food distribution and WIC, which provides nutrition aid to pregnant women, mothers and babies, are also in jeopardy should the shutdown last until March.

Hundreds of federal contracts for low-income Americans receiving housing assistance are expiring. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is unable to renew them and has instead directed private owners to dip into their reserves to cover shortfalls.

As time goes on, more and more programs will become vital, said Linda Bilmes, a public policy professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the meaning of what’s essential will shift.

“Even apart from the fact that there may be particular instances of things that are being manipulated for political purposes,” she said, “there are also realities that government agencies are facing as they reassess what is absolutely essential to do now that we’re here, with no immediate end in sight.”
…

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has all but given up efforts to negotiate a compromise to end the U.S. government shutdown that would fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for extending legal protections for thousands of young undocumented immigrants and others who recently have lost legal status under the Temporary Protected Status program.

As late as Wednesday, Graham expressed hope that such a grand bargain could be reached.

“There is a deal to be had. It’s always been there. I think I have been boring you all for a month about how this movie ends. It’s got to be wall plus something else,” said Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina and close ally to Trump.

But on Thursday, Graham admitted that a legislative resolution to this standoff is likely out of reach, and indicated that President Donald Trump may soon invoke emergency powers to build the wall without congressional approval.

“There’s no pathway forward that I can see. The president believes that’s his power, seems to me the only way left is for him to exercise that authority. I don’t see any action in the Congress,” Graham said.

DACA and TPS

Graham’s proposal would have given President Trump the $5.7 billion he wants to build the border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, along with giving Democrats a significant concession by reaffirming former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that granted legal status to more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as young children.

The Trump administration attempted to terminate DACA in 2017, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently blocked the presidential rescission order, saying it was “arbitrary and capricious under settled law.”

The administration has appealed the matter to the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide in the coming days whether it will take the case.

TPS is in similar limbo. The program, which grants temporary legal status and work permits to citizens of countries suffering from natural disasters or armed conflict, was canceled by the Trump administration for about 400,000 people.

But a federal court ruled in October the U.S. government violated the law when it ended TPS for people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan. This case, too, may be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Senate attempted to pass a similar bipartisan plan to extend the DACA population legal status and authorize $25 billion over the next decade for southern-border-security construction projects, including $18 billion for the wall. Various versions of proposed legislation ultimately were rejected, as some Democrats opposed the tough immigration restrictions included and many conservative Republicans objected to any form of amnesty being granted.

​Uncompromising Democrats

The sharp political divide in Washington has only deepened since Democrats took control of the House of Representatives this month, following the party’s gains in midterm elections. And neither the Democrats nor Trump seem willing to compromise to end the government shutdown.

Many Democrats don’t want to link support for legal status for young immigrants known as Dreamers, a position that most Americans support, to funding the border wall, which remains a highly controversial issue.

“That is not the negotiation we should be having. It doesn’t make any sense at all, to trade something that absolutely can and should be done for good policy and moral reasons, for something that actually should not be done for policy or moral reasons,” said Tom Jawetz, an immigration policy analyst at the Democratic leaning Center for American Progress policy institute.

The Democratic leadership, Jawetz says, does not trust Trump to support any deal, and believes the president wants to keep immigration and border security as divisive issues to energize his core supporters in the 2020 election.

Immigration opposition

Trump’s demand for border wall funding to end the government shutdown, after earlier indicating he would sign a short-term funding bill with no money for the wall, is seen by many as a reaction to conservative media criticism that he was capitulating on his central campaign promise to “build the wall.”

But some hard-line anti-immigration groups that support Trump, like the Center for Immigration Studies, view the wall as more symbolic than essential to significantly restrict illegal immigration. Granting a mass amnesty in exchange for the wall is a deal they would not support.

“A wall is not the most important enforcement procedure, and it’s also not the thing we want most in terms of immigration reform. So to give away something big like an amnesty for people who aren’t even supposed to be in the country, we would want some significant concession,” said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Increasing the number of agents, judges and detention facilities at the border, reforming the immigrations system to quickly deport most asylum-seekers that critics say are actually economic migrants, and increasing enforcement efforts to ensure U.S. businesses do not hire undocumented immigrants, Camarota says, would more effectively deter illegal immigration.

But the Trump administration may not have liked the linkage either. Vice President Mike Pence told reporters Thursday that DACA is not up for negotiation until the Supreme Court weighs in.
…

President Trump’s plan to withdraw troops from Syria is underway, with the Pentagon confirming equipment has begun leaving the battlefield, but soldiers are staying for now. As White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara reports, President Trump is finding it difficult to fulfill his pledge to cut back on foreign military interventions.
…

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has announced that she is running for president in 2020.

Gabbard said in a CNN interview slated to air Saturday night that she will be formally announcing her candidacy within the next week.

The 37-year-old Iraq War veteran is the first Hindu elected to Congress. She has visited New Hampshire and Iowa in recent months and has written a memoir that’s due to be published in May.

Gabbard was criticized in 2016 for traveling to Syria and meeting with President Bashar Assad, who has been accused of war crimes. She says it’s important to meet with adversaries if “you are serious about pursuing peace.”

Gabbard was one of the most prominent lawmakers to back Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. 
…

U.S. Rep. Steve King says he’s not a racist, but the Iowa Republican faced intensifying criticism Friday over his remarks about white supremacy, including from a black GOP senator who said such comments are a blight on the nation and the party. 

For the second time in two days, King insisted that he is an advocate for “Western civilization,” not white supremacy or white nationalism. But he didn’t deny remarks published a day earlier in The New York Times in which he was quoted saying: “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”

Within hours Thursday, the House’s top three Republicans condemned his remarks, and on Friday, GOP Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina published his disapproval in an op-ed column.

King, who has denied being racist, appeared on the House floor after most lawmakers had left town.

‘My mistake’

“One phrase in that long article has created an unnecessary controversy. That was my mistake,” King told his colleagues. King said terms describing bigotry, such as racism, are unfairly applied to “otherwise innocent” people.

King, in his ninth House term, spoke as key members of his party publicly took issue with his remarks and as a Republican from back home lined up to challenge him in a GOP primary.

Scott, who is black, cast King’s remarks and those like them as a blemish on the country and the Republican Party, which has long had a frosty relationship with black voters.

“When people with opinions similar to King’s open their mouths, they damage not only the Republican Party and the conservative brand but also our nation as a whole,” Scott wrote.

King’s views, Scott added, are separate from the conservative movement and “should be ridiculed at every turn possible.”

“Some in our party wonder why Republicans are constantly accused of racism — it is because of our silence when things like this are said,” Scott wrote.

In fact, House Republican leaders swiftly condemned King’s remarks as racist. And on Wednesday, King drew a 2020 primary challenger: Randy Feenstra, a GOP state senator.

But King’s position in the GOP had been imperiled even before then.

In 2017, he tweeted: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Then he doubled down on CNN, telling the network, “I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogeneous that we look a lot the same.”

Shortly before the 2018 midterm elections, in which King was running, Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, then the head of the GOP campaign committee, issued an extraordinary public denunciation of him.

King on Friday suggested he’s been misunderstood. He said the foundation of the Times interview was partly a Sept. 12 tweet in which he wrote: ” ‘Nazi’ is injected into Leftist talking points because the worn out & exhausted ‘racist’ is over used & applied to everyone who lacks melanin & who fail to virtue signal at the requisite frequency & decibels. But…Nazis were socialists & Leftists are socialists.”

On Friday, King said on the House floor that the interview “also was discussion of other terms that have been used, almost always unjustly labeling otherwise innocent people. The word racist, the word Nazi, the word fascist, the phrase white nationalists, the phrase white supremacists.”

King said he was only wondering aloud: “How did that offensive language get injected into our political dialogue? Who does that, how does it get done, how do they get by with laying labels like this on people?” 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump is considering formally declaring the southern U.S. border a “national emergency,” likely clearing the way for him to authorize new funding for a permanent physical barrier.

The move could end a standoff with Congress over funding for the wall, but some legal analysts worry it will set a dangerous precedent for presidents trying to negotiate with Congress.

VOA spoke with John Hudak, Deputy Director of the Center for Effective Public Management at The Brooking Institute, about the legal issues around the president’s possible emergency declaration.

QUESTION: What powers does a president have to declare a national emergency? Could he simply order government funds to be used to build a border wall?

So there are really two questions here. First, under the National Emergencies Act, the president has a fairly broad power to declare a national emergency. Now the declaration of that emergency is simply that — a declaration. And according to a pretty firm reading of that law, it’s hard to see where there is an exception to the president’s ability to do it.

The next part of that, though, involves the powers that the president can exercise under that law and there are obvious limitations on that, constitutional limitations and other limitations within the law that the president can’t violate. And unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we haven’t experienced serious questions about presidential power in this space. So it’s really left as an open question right now, in terms of the extent of presidential power that courts will need to sort out.

Q: Could Democrats block this in Congress? Is there any constitutional precedent for presidents simply going around Congress to fund a priority policy item?

So there is, within the law, the ability of Congress to stop a national emergency. It requires both houses of Congress to vote to say that the national emergency is over. Now Democrats can certainly do that alone, in the House. They cannot, however, do it alone in the Senate, it would require several Republican votes.

However, this is the type of exercise of executive power that leaves a lot of Republicans uneasy. And you’re already starting to see those conversations among Senate Republicans, saying that if we’re all right with President Trump doing this over a border wall, would we also be all right with a Democratic president doing this over climate change or other issues?

And so I think it remains to be seen whether Congress will have the votes to stop presidential action in this area, whether they’ll have the political will to do it. But they certainly have the power to stop this type of behavior.

To the second part of your question, you know, presidents have tried to go around Congress in terms of spending money in the past or even moving money around within or across budget lines or accounts in the past.

And frequently presidents are stopped because the spending power in the constitution rests with the Congress and so this creates a real challenge for President Trump if he wants to start moving funds or re-appropriating funds or using funds that are not even appropriated, pushing up against that constitutional protection against that power. So he might have the power to declare a national emergency, but he cannot usurp the Constitution in the exercise of powers during that emergency.

Q: On the politics of the current shutdown, is one side or the other winning? Which sides appears to have an advantage at the moment? How does it end?

Well, it’s clear one side is losing and that’s the American public, and particularly the hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are not being paid or who are not going to work. In terms of the political actors, you know, the polling that we have suggests that most Americans blame President Trump for the shutdown.

A smaller percentage of Americans blame congressional Democrats and smaller still blame congressional Republicans. I think a lot of Americans look at this skeptically and say, ‘What has changed between the beginning of the president’s term and now that makes this such a dire emergency?’ And I think it leaves a lot of Americans scratching their head. President Trump is playing to his base here, but unfortunately his base is a small percentage of the population. And most of the rest of the population is not with him on this issue of the wall.

Elizabeth Cherneff contributed to this report.
…

The 800,000 federal workers who are not being paid or are working without pay during the partial government shutdown were the first to feel its impact. But as Anna Kook reports, other segments of the economy are also being hurt, especially in Washington, home to the largest number of federal workers in the country.
…

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo sharply criticized former President Barack Obama’s policies in the Middle East, as he outlined the Trump administration’s vision for the region. Pompeo called on U.S. allies in the Middle East and elsewhere to do more to fight Islamic State terrorists and counter what he termed Iran’s “malign influence.” VOA’s diplomatic correspondent Cindy Saine reports from Washington.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump visited the border with Mexico to reiterate his demand for wall funding. Without opposition Democrat’s support, Trump signaled he could soon declare a national emergency. White House correspondent Patsy Widakuswara reports.
…

The former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday that what’s happening on the U.S. southern border is no emergency.

Craig Fugate, who ran the national disaster agency for nearly eight years under President Barack Obama and was head of Florida’s disaster agency under a Republican governor, said the push of refugees seeking asylum on the border with Mexico is not a national emergency.

President Donald Trump has called it a crisis and is weighing a national emergency declaration to bypass a reluctant Congress and fund his long-promised border wall. The issue has led to the extended partial government shutdown.

The Trump administration appointed Fugate, who ran recovery operations to numerous hurricanes and other disasters, to manage the issue of separated migrant children.

“And that was a crisis,” Fugate said in a phone interview with The Associated Press. It was an issue of mass care, he said.

More terrorists come into the United States through the northern border than the southern, said Fugate, who was part of the Department of Homeland Security.

“I’ve yet to see anything physically stop illegal immigration,” Fugate said. He said it would be cheaper and more effective to spend money to reduce crime and poverty in areas the refugees are fleeing from to stop illegal immigration that way.

“This is posturing, blustering,” Fugate said. He said Trump is essentially saying, “If I can’t get Congress to fund it, I’m going to use my authority to bypass Congress.”

Fugate said he worries that it continues a trend of presidents being more powerful than the legislative and judicial branches, something he traces back to Abraham Lincoln and, more recently, Franklin Roosevelt. The Supreme Court stopped President Harry Truman from using national emergency powers to nationalize the steel industry, but Fugate said he worries that won’t happen if Trump declares a national emergency to bypass Congress.

“What happens if they suspend the vote? What happens if they suspend the Congress?” Fugate asked. “That’s what happens in countries where the executive branch is greater than the legislative and judiciary.”
…

Three Russian companies have cut ties to a sanctioned oligarch and will no longer be under U.S. sanctions themselves, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday. 

Mnuchin appeared before the House of Representatives, where a number of Democrats want the Trump administration to postpone lifting sanctions against the three firms. 

In a statement issued before the meeting, Mnuchin said Oleg Deripaska would remain under U.S. sanctions, but the three companies he controlled — aluminum giant Rusal, its parent firm En+ and energy company EuroSIbEnergo — would not. 

“They have committed to provide Treasury with an unprecedented level of transparency into their dealings to ensure that Deripaska does not reassert control,” the statement read. 

Mnuchin assured lawmakers that the Trump administration would keep a close watch on the firms, promising that if they failed to comply with the terms to end the sanctions, they would face “very real and swift consequences, including the reimposition of sanctions.”  

Treasury placed sanctions on Deripaska in April 2018 for what it called Russian “malign activity,” including election meddling and crimes by Deripaska himself, which consisted of allegations of bribery, extortion, murder and links to organized crime.  

Deripaska has denied all the charges. 

“One of the goals of sanctions is to change behavior, and the proposed delisting of companies that Deripaska will no longer control shows that sanctions can result in positive change,” Mnuchin said. 
…

With the deceptive use of a video, President Donald Trump on Thursday heartily thanked his White House predecessor for supporting his policy at the Mexican border. Barack Obama has offered no such support; only criticism. 

Trump also denied that he ever expected Mexico to make a direct payment for his border wall, despite a call in a campaign policy paper for a “one-time payment” from Mexico of $5 billion to $10 billion, with options for Mexico to contribute in alternative ways. Mexico is refusing to contribute at all.

A look at Trump’s statements Thursday as he traveled to Texas to make his case for what he calls a security and humanitarian crisis, a possible precursor to declaring a national emergency at the border:

Obama video 

Trump: “President Obama, thank you for your great support — I have been saying this all along!’’— tweet, accompanied by video of Obama speaking as president in 2014.

Trump: “Obama used to call it a crisis at the border, too.” — remarks before departing the White House for Texas.

The facts: Obama’s remarks in the short video clip do not support Trump’s proposal for a border wall or endorse the path Trump is considering now: declaring a national emergency that might enable him to circumvent Congress and unilaterally spend money on the wall. Instead, Obama was asking Congress to approve an emergency appropriation to deal with a surge of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and youth, mostly from Central American, trying to cross the border from Mexico.  

“We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border,” Obama said at the time, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden. He was referring specifically to the surge of minors that year.

That crisis eventually eased as the U.S. stepped up border enforcement, surveillance and resources for the waves of unaccompanied children. Now, a sharp increase in the number of families at the border, coupled with the Trump administration’s hard-line stance, is overwhelming border resources, worsening a backlog in the asylum system and leaving migrants to live in abysmal conditions on the Mexican side. 

Trump, however, has been unable to convince Congress that the border poses a national security risk. He has made a series of statements falsely claiming that terrorists are pouring in from Mexico, that a wall would choke off shipments of illicit drugs, which actually come mainly through legal ports of entry, and that people who get in the country illegally commit a disproportionate share of violent crime.

Late in his presidency, Obama was repeatedly critical of Trump’s immigration stance and the wall specifically. In May 2016, for example, he said: “Suggesting that we can build an endless wall along our borders, and blame our challenges on immigrants — that doesn’t just run counter to our history as the world’s melting pot; it contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been spurred by our ability to attract strivers from every corner of the globe.”

Mexico and the wall 

Trump. on Mexico paying for the wall: “I never meant they’re going to write out a check.” — remarks before departure to Texas.

Trump: `”Mexico is paying for the wall indirectly. And when I said Mexico will pay for the wall, in front of thousands and thousands of people, obviously they’re not going to write a check.”— remarks before departure.

Trump: “They’re paying for the wall in a great trade deal.” — remarks in Texas.

The facts: Actually, a Trump campaign policy paper envisaged an explicit payment from Mexico: “It’s an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion,” the paper said.

The plan also outlined various ways for Trump to compel Mexico to pay for the wall, such as by Washington cutting off billions of dollars in remittances sent back to Mexico by immigrants living in the U.S., or by recouping the money through trade tariffs or higher visa fees. None of that has happened.

Instead, Trump is arguing that the updated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico will pay for the wall because of economic benefits he predicts will come from the deal. Nothing in the trade agreement would cover or refund the construction cost or require a payment from Mexico. Instead, he is assuming a wide variety of economic benefits will come from the agreement that can’t be quantified or counted on. For example, he has said the deal will dissuade some U.S. companies from moving operations to Mexico and he credits that possibility as a payment by Mexico.

The agreement preserves the existing liberalized environment of low or no tariffs among the U.S., Mexico and Canada, with certain improvements for each country. The deal has yet to be ratified in any member country and there is no assurance it will win legislative approval.  

Although his campaign left open the possibility that Mexico might somehow contribute to the cost indirectly, Trump roused his crowds with the straight-ahead promise: “I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

Again and again at his rallies, Trump asked his crowds dramatically who would pay for the wall.

“Mexico,” they responded.

“Who?” he’s asked again.

“Mexico,” they roared.

Now he is saying his words were not meant to be taken literally.

 
…