“I will build a great wall,” declared Donald Trump in announcing he was running for president in June 2015. “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

A wall at the U.S.-Mexico became Trump’s signature promise — a call and response at all of his campaign and post-campaign rallies, a symbol of his contempt for illegal immigrants and the centerpiece of his draconian immigration policies.

Yet, a­­s much as the billionaire former New York real estate investor says he wants it, there is still no trace of the towering, gleaming, all-encompassing border wall he originally promised.

More than two years into his first term, all Trump has to show is eight wall sections erected on a dusty plot of scrubland near San Diego. This month, previously planned construction begins on 9.5 kilometers of levee wall in the Rio Grande River Valley in Texas, marking the first wall construction during the Trump presidency.

The president’s insistence on $5.7 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds for the wall over Democrats’ objections and tepid­­ public support led to a 35-day partial government shutdown in December and January, and another one threatened for February.

The spending deal finally struck by Democratic and Republican negotiators — and expected to be approved by Trump — was an unmistakable setback for the president. It provided $1.375 billion for 88 kilometers of fencing, only a quarter of the money he sought, and a fraction of the 322 kilometers of new wall he demanded.

Trump said he was “not happy” with the compromise, but was unwilling to torpedo the agreement and trigger another shutdown. Instead, he hinted at seeking executive action to shift funding from other accounts to supplement the cost of a wall.

​​Actual wall and…

Currently, some kind of barrier exists on 1,127 kilometers of the U.S.-Mexico border, about a third of the 3,145-kilometer boundary.

While Trump’s focus on building a wall has not changed, the wall itself — or his idea of the wall — has steadily contracted.

What started out as a concrete barrier along the border “from sea to shining sea” has devolved into something “see-through” or built with metal slats, constructed where there are no natural barriers. Recently, Trump resolved to “just call them walls, and stop playing political games,” as if the term were merely a label that could be affixed to anything.

“The symbolism is more important than the reality,” the National Review’’s Jonah Goldberg wrote in December. “Immigration policy itself is something of an afterthought.”

Pundits have speculated on the symbolic meaning of Trump’s wall. “Shielding America from outside threats and uncertainty.” Trump’s “neediness.” “His presidency.” Proof that the “government is listening.” And “ruin.”

‘Big, beautiful wall’

Five days after he was sworn in as president, Trump issued an executive order authorizing the wall and earmarking whatever federal funds could be found to pay for it, to combat “a surge of illegal immigration.”

“’Wall’ shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier,” the order specified, to be built all along the southern border.

A month later, Customs and Border Protection announced it would accept design concepts from construction companies and award contracts after reviewing their bids.

By now, spurned by Mexican officials, Trump had abandoned his fantasy that the Mexican government would pay for it.

CBP didn’t have the money. Its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, could only find $20 million in existing funds for the wall, which it estimated would cost $21.6 billion.

​The money would cover only eight prototypes — with nothing left over for actual wall construction.

Trump vowed to renew the fight when the fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget was discussed in September, and if necessary, shut down the government — a threat that would become a refrain until it became a reality.

​In defeat, double down

During the next two budget cycles, Trump exhibited a pattern: big demands, lots of posturing, and when rebuffed, an even bigger demand.

On Oct. 1, 2017, when the new budget would have taken effect, the government was operating on money provided by a short-term funding bill, the first of five that would keep the government running through March 2018, with the exception of two brief shutdowns.

In his original budget request, Trump asked for $1.6 billion as a down payment on the wall. This was approved by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives in July. But it wouldn’t pass the Senate, where the majority needed Democratic votes to clear parliamentary hurdles in passing spending measures.

Yet in early December, Trump pushed for $25 billion in wall funding.

Why had he so greatly increased his request, when Congress was already deadlocked?

A key issue at the time was the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which sheltered young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and allowed them to work.

​Trump was ending DACA in March unless Congress acted to save it. Democrats badly wanted a fix for the DACA program, which also allowed recipients to work and go to school. An obvious deal would be for Trump to support a legislative extension of DACA in return for Democratic support of wall construction.

Three’s a charm?

In the first three months of 2018, Trump had three chances to obtain full wall funding. He rejected them all.

The First. In mid-January, with the third short-term spending bill set to expire in hours, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York met with Trump over cheeseburgers to head off a government shutdown. Schumer reportedly offered $25 billion for the wall over 10 years in exchange for a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. Reports say he left thinking he had a deal. But White House Chief of Staff John Kelly later called and quashed it. A 69-hour shutdown followed. 

Three days later, Trump introduced his “Four Pillars” immigration reform plan: No deal without wall construction. An end to family-based migration. An end to the diversity visa. A solution for DACA.

The Second. In mid-February, Democrats and some Republicans introduced a bill that included $25 billion for the wall over a 10-year period, and DACA. While it contained additional immigration provisions, it did not address the other pillars.

The next day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders put out a statement  threatening a Trump veto because the bill would “produce a flood of new illegal immigration.”

The bill subsequently failed in the Senate.

The Third. In March, with another funding deadline looming, Democrats offered $25 billion for the wall in a flat exchange for citizenship for DACA recipients. Republicans countered with a 2.5-year extension for DACA. Democrats rejected that offer as unbalanced because it called for permanent funding for the wall but only a temporary fix for DACA. 

By this time, the courts were keeping DACA going while its constitutionality was tested. There no longer was an urgency to preserve the program through congressional action.

When the budget was finally signed on March 22, lawmakers had approved only $1.375 billion for border security, none of which included construction of a border wall.

In a tweet, Trump threatened to veto the bill. But he signed the measure, vowing never to do it again.

‘Big fight’

If there was a silver lining to not getting wall authorization, it was that Trump could use the issue to whip up voters in advance of the 2018 midterm elections.

​His depiction of escalating danger at the southern border was the core of his campaign stump speeches for Republican House and Senate candidates.

While chants for the wall were vehement as ever at campaign rallies, no big constituency showed up at the polls. Republicans won a few additional seats in the Senate, but Democrats swept the House and set up a new dynamic: a divided government.

In September, outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin had promised a “big fight” over wall funding. A few weeks after the election, here it was. Trump showed his hand: DACA and the other pillars had fallen away. All he wanted was $5.7 billion for the wall. Earlier, Congress had given tentative approval to $1.6 billion.

“I am firm,” Trump said. “Politically speaking, that issue is a total winner.”

​In a bizarre, mid-December squabble with Nancy Pelosi, the presumptive new House Speaker, and Schumer at the White House, Trump declared, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security. … I will take the mantle. … I won’t blame you (Schumer) for it.”

​As a result, he owned the 35-day partial shutdown that followed, leaving 800,000 government employees without paychecks, curtailing government services and costing the economy billions of dollars.

The high-profile political clash ended where it began: the president insisting on $5.7 billion for the wall, and Pelosi firmly declaring, “There’s not going to be any wall money.”

As another government shutdown loomed this week, a bipartisan committee of 17 Senate and House members agreed on a compromise that Trump has reluctantly agreed to sign.

Negotiating downward

Two years. Two budgets. Two prolonged fights over funding for the wall. In each case, the final compromise fell short — not only of what the president was demanding, but also short of what he could have had if he’d just taken what was initially offered.

In both FY2018 and FY2019, the White House began by seeking $1.6 billion for border security. After an exhaustive six months of posturing, negotiating and shutting down the government, lawmakers agreed to less in both years, and only 88 kilometers (or 55 miles) of fencing in all.

It was almost as if Trump — long touted as a master deal maker — were reverse negotiating.
…

Accusations of extortion and blackmail made by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, against a national gossip newspaper in the U.S. may have breached the legal limits of broad press freedom protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. VOA’s Brian Padden takes a look at what’s at stake.
…

Accusations of extortion and blackmail made by the world’s richest man against a national gossip newspaper may have breached the legal limits of broad press freedoms protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, who owns both the Amazon online shopping site and The Washington Post newspaper, recently claimed that the publishers of the National Enquirer newspaper’s parent company, American Media Inc. (AMI), threatened to publish intimate photos of Bezos unless he halted an investigation into the tabloid’s aggressive coverage of his divorce.

The Amazon founder, who is reportedly worth $136 billion, said he would “spare no expense” to investigate how the Enquirer obtained his private text messages that were published in a story alleging an extramarital affair with former news anchor Lauren Sanchez before announcing his divorce from his wife of 25 years.

WATCH: Amazon Blackmail Allegations and US Press Freedom

​Legal liability

AMI has denied the charges and maintains it acted lawfully in its reporting.

“It absolutely is not extortion and not blackmail. What happened was the story was given to the National Enquirer by a reliable source that had given information to the National Enquirer for seven years prior to this story. It was a source that was well-known to both Mr. Bezos and Miss Sanchez,” said Elkan Abramowitz, an attorney representing AMI.

There have been media reports speculating that Michael Sanchez, the brother of Lauren Sanchez, may have provided the Bezos texts to the Enquirer.

​Legal hot water

However, AMI chairman and CEO David Pecker and the media conglomerate could be in legal jeopardy if Bezos’ blackmail allegations can be proved, or if the Enquirer is found to have been directly involved in stealing private text messages.

“I don’t quite understand why AMI and its lawyers engaged in activity that potentially violates federal extortion laws and state criminal laws involving coercion. And potentially, depending on how they got the information, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is an anti-federal, anti-hacking law,” said Tor Ekeland, a federal criminal defense lawyer.

Last year, Pecker admitted that before the 2016 election, AMI paid $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to silence her allegations of an affair with Trump. The publishers avoided prosecution by agreeing to cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating campaign finance violations. Prosecutors are now looking into whether the Bezos extortion allegations violate the previous deal that was conditional on AMI not committing further crimes.

​Partisan press

The Bezos investigation is also looking into the possible political motivations behind the Enquirer’s extensive coverage, which according to the Enquirer entailed sending reporters to follow Bezos and Sanchez “across five states and 40,000 miles,” and tracking them “in private jets, swanky limos, helicopter rides.”

Bezos suggested he may have been targeted by the Enquirer in retaliation for The Washington Post’s critical coverage of President Donald Trump, and of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s alleged involvement in the killing of Saudi dissident and Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Trump has often criticized Amazon, The Washington Post and Bezos on Twitter, calling the newspaper “the Amazon Washington Post,” and its owner, “Bozo.”

Pecker, a longtime friend of Trump, reportedly also has ties to leaders in Saudi Arabia.

The White House and Saudi officials have denied any knowledge or involvement in the Enquirer coverage.

Press freedom

Bezos may find little legal recourse against charges he is being politically targeted by a media organization aligned with Trump.

The Enquirer’s salacious reporting on Bezos’ alleged affair, even if done for overtly partisan reasons, would likely be protected under the First Amendment.

“I have to separate out the sleaze here from the principle I think we’re trying to protect, which is, journalists have a right to publish what they know,” said Gene Policinski, director of the Freedom Forum Institute’s First Amendment Center.

And news organizations in the United States have a long history of political partisanship, of aligning with political parties and targeting opposition groups with more critical coverage.

“Political partnership, again, is part of our marketplace of ideas. It is part of what we’ve always accepted in the idea of, if you don’t like it, you can publish your own. Government stays out of the way,” Policinski said.

Bezos could also pursue a civil suit against AMI, but public figures have to cross a higher threshold to prove defamation in U.S. courts.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has made no decision on whether to sign proposed bipartisan legislation for limited new barrier construction along the U.S.-Mexico border in order to avert another partial government shutdown Friday over the dispute.

“We’ll be looking for land mines [in the bill]” but “we have not gotten it yet,” Trump said in response to reporters in the Oval Office during a meeting with Colombian President Ivan Duque. 

The president, however, indicated he was pleased with preliminary figures in the border security deal worked out by a committee of Republicans and Democrats, saying “total funding is almost up to $23 billion, it’s about 8 percent higher.”

Trump called Democrats stingy when it comes to funding for the wall.

“We’re building a lot of wall right now with money that we already have,” added Trump, explaining that there are “a lot of options” to complete the border barrier’s construction.

“We’re going to have a great wall, it’s going to be a great, powerful wall” with technology, including drones, explained the president. 

“I don’t want to see a shutdown. A shutdown would be a terrible thing,” Trump said.

The bipartisan agreement reached by lawmakers gives Trump less than a quarter of the $5.7 billion he has been demanding for wall construction, which was a centerpiece of his 2016 presidential campaign.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, said earlier Wednesday, “It’s hard to say definitively whether or not the president’s going to sign it until we know everything that’s in it.”

Trump suggested Tuesday that he would tap other government funds for wall construction without express authorization from Congress. Such a move would invite a legal challenge from opposition Democrats and other groups.

Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has voted yet on the legislation as aides continue to craft final language in the measure. To avert a new shutdown, both chambers have to approve the legislation, and Trump has to sign it before Friday midnight, when numerous federal agencies, including Homeland Security — which controls border operations —again run out of money.

Under Trump, Congress has not authorized any funding for a wall, one of Trump’s prime pledges during his successful 2016 campaign for the White House. But wall repairs and replacements for deteriorating sections along the 3,200-kilometer border have been ongoing.

The top leaders in the Senate, Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat Chuck Schumer, both called on Trump to sign the compromise barrier funding legislation.

“I strongly urge the president to sign this agreement,” Schumer said Tuesday. “No one gets everything they want in these agreements. But the president must sign it and not, not, not cause another shutdown.”

The package calls for new barriers in the Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas, as well as technology upgrades for screening at border entry points, more customs officers and humanitarian aid.
…

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee postponed a vote on Wednesday on whether to approve Ronald Vitiello, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Committee Chairman Ron Johnson did not elaborate on the reasons for the delay, but the postponement came one day after ICE’s employee union urged lawmakers to block the nomination amid concerns about past racially tinged and controversial comments Vitiello made on Twitter.

“We are going to hold over the ICE director nomination,” Johnson said. “There are some issues that continue on that, so we will not be voting on the ICE director.”

This is the second time the Senate panel has delayed voting on Vitiello’s nomination.

The committee postponed a vote last November after the union, the National ICE Council, first raised concerns about Vitiello’s fitness for leading the agency.

On Tuesday, union President Chris Crane sent a letter formally asking the panel to oppose Vitiello, saying his prior offensive tweets showed he “lacks the judgment and professionalism to effectively lead a federal agency.”
…

The Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential field continued to grow this week with the formal entry of Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

But a new poll suggests good news for two men who are not yet in the race, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran in 2016, and former Vice President Joe Biden.

The Morning Consult survey found Biden atop the Democratic field with 29 percent support, followed by Sanders at 22 percent and California Senator Kamala Harris in third place at 13 percent. That is good news for Harris, who is among several Democratic newcomers who have launched campaigns in recent days, and she has gained some traction in several recent surveys.

Klobuchar’s bid

Klobuchar is the latest entrant into the quickly expanding field and she hopes to gain momentum as a moderate, deal-making Democrat who can draw support from working class voters in the Midwest.

“I don’t have a political machine. I don’t come from money. But what I do have is this: I have grit,” Klobuchar said to supporters gathered in a snowstorm Sunday in Minnesota at her official launch.

A day earlier, Warren made her candidacy official before a large crowd gathered in front of a mill building in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a city north of Boston.

Warren emphasized bridging the economic gap in the country between the very wealthy and America’s middle class.

“This is the fight of our lives. The fight to build an America where dreams are possible and an America that works for everyone!”

Another early contender who has been making the rounds in the early caucus state of Iowa is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. He is emphasizing national unity in his pitch to Democratic voters.

“I am running for president because that garment, that fabric, has been ripped and torn and we must repair it. We must stitch it together, each of us,” Booker told a group of Democrats in Mason City, Iowa.

Diverse field

The Democratic field includes several women and minority candidates and is already shaping up as one of the most varied in history, according to Brookings Institution political scholar Elaine Kamarck.

“A lot of diversity in the field, which reflects what the Democratic Party is today. It is a pretty good field. “You have serious people who are serious about government. I don’t know who will manage to rise above the others. But so far it is a pretty solid field.”

So far, nine Democrats have either officially declared their candidacy or formed a presidential exploratory committee, and several more are expected to join the field in the weeks ahead.

Liberal views

Most of the Democratic contenders hold liberal views on the economy, the environment and social issues. Many, for example, support an approach known as “Medicare for All,” which would expand government health care coverage.

Others favor what is known as the “Green New Deal,” an environmental program that would emphasize renewable energy sources and drastically move away from fossil fuels.

Analysts say that in a field that could eventually expand to 15 or 20 candidates, the Democratic contenders early on will be looking for ways to set themselves apart from the rest of the field.

“I think the key candidates, the ones who will do well, will have a constituency either in the progressive wing of the party that is really fighting Donald Trump or especially in the African American community,” said John Fortier of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Target Trump

The candidate field may be diverse, but grassroots Democratic voters will likely be focused on one key unifying goal, according to University of Virginia expert Larry Sabato.

“When you get right down to it, what is the most important thing to Democrats? If I am to believe what I am hearing, and I do, it is that they want to pick the candidate who has the best chance of beating Donald Trump,” Sabato said via Skype.

For his part, President Trump is eager to bash the Democratic presidential field as too far to the left, as he did at his Monday night border rally in Texas. 

“The Democrat Party has never been more outside of the main stream. They are becoming the party of socialism, late-term abortion, open borders and crime,” Trump said to cheers from supporters in El Paso.

More Democrats are expected to join the race in the weeks ahead and that list could include Biden, Sanders, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke.
…

The proportion of Americans found to be “alarmed” by climate change has doubled in just five years, the pollsters behind a nationwide survey revealed on Tuesday.

Twenty-nine percent of respondents to the poll conducted last December by Yale and George Mason universities were in the alarmed category — an all-time high — and twice the percentage of those surveyed in 2013.

More than 1,100 adults across the United States were asked about their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors toward climate change.

The answers were then used to classify respondents into six groups, from dismissive, or least worried about climate change, to alarmed, for those most worried.

Those deemed dismissive of global warming represented 9 percent of respondents, a drop of five points compared to 2013.

‘Green New Deal’

The findings come amid a growing polarization of the political debate over the issue of global warming in the United States.

The decision by U.S. President Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris climate deal has fired up his base, while opponents have championed a “Green New Deal” that seeks to eliminate the nation’s heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions within a decade.

The 2015 Paris accord, agreed by nearly 200 nations, seeks to wean the global economy off fossil fuels in the second half of this century, limiting the rise in average temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

The increased visibility of global warming such debates generate could explain Americans’ rising concern, said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor emeritus at Hunter College in New York City.

“The more information you get there more interested that you are,” he said.

Academic research has further shown that growing exposure to bouts of extreme weather may also change minds, he added. “And it results in higher concern.”

Climate change influences economy

Climate change will cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, hitting everything from health to infrastructure, according to a 2018 government report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II.

Meanwhile, three of the five costliest hurricanes in the United States — Harvey, Maria and Irma — occurred in 2017, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the U.S. Commerce Department.
…

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that the U.S. Senate will vote on a Green New Deal introduced by Democrats that aims to slash U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to negligible levels in a decade.

“I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate, give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell said.

The document introduced last week marked the first formal attempt by lawmakers to define legislation to create big government-led investments in clean energy, infrastructure and social programs. The goal is to transition the U.S. economy away from burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, rising sea levels and severe storms.

The initiative was unveiled by Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a rising political star, and Senator Edward Markey. The initiative has the backing of almost all the Democrats declared as candidates seeking the party’s nomination in the 2020 presidential election.

Co-sponsor Markey said McConnell’s call for a vote before hearings and a national debate on the Green New Deal was an attempt to sabotage the plan.

“They have offered no plan to address this economic and national security threat and want to sabotage any effort that makes Big Oil and corporate polluters pay,” he said in a statement.

Republicans have used the Green New Deal to try to sow discord within the Democratic party, painting their political rivals as shifting to the left and embracing extreme policies.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had called the Green New Deal a “green dream” and some Democrats in fossil fuel-dependent or rural districts have stayed quiet on their position.

Republican criticism

Republican Senator John Barrasso, chair of the Senate environment committee, said Democrats were proposing a plan that “raises taxes, that overthrows really a productive energy market that we have right now in this country, raises energy costs, forces people out of work who are working in the energy field.”

Barrasso represents the coal-producing state of Wyoming.

The plan outlines some of the most aggressive climate goals ever put forward by Democratic lawmakers and clashes dramatically with the Trump administration’s efforts to advance domestic oil, gas and coal production by rolling back environmental protections.

Some Democrats hit back at the Republican attempt to call for a vote on the resolution before hearings and debates take place, calling it a “cynical” move.

“Instead of trying to cause mischief, the #Republican Party should put forward its own serious proposal to address #climatechange,” Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse wrote Tuesday on Twitter.

Trump response

President Donald Trump’s administration opposes action on climate change and favors boosting U.S. production of oil, gas and coal.

On Monday, Trump poked fun at the Green New Deal at his campaign rally in El Paso, Texas, making exaggerated claims that the policy would force people to give up air travel and owning cows, a source of methane emissions.

“I really don’t like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of ‘let’s hop a train to California,’ of you’re not allowed to own cows anymore!” Trump said at the rally.

The name, Green New Deal, references the New Deal of the 1930s that President Franklin Roosevelt implemented to aid Americans suffering in the Great Depression by embarking on huge government-led infrastructure projects.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump has called for the resignation of Democratic freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who apologize Monday after drawing widespread condemnation from both Republicans and her fellow Democrats for comments deemed anti-Semitic.

The president told reporters Tuesday that Omar’s apology was “lame” and added, “She didn’t mean a word of it.” Trump called on Omar to resign Congress or at least resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee on which she serves.

Omar, a Somali Muslim refugee who took office five weeks ago as a representative for the midwestern state of Minnesota,  apologized Monday after drawing widespread condemnation from both Republicans and her fellow Democrats for comments deemed anti-Semitic.

Congresswoman Omar contended in a string of Twitter comments Sunday that a pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, is buying off lawmakers to support the Jewish state.

She claimed the lawmakers’ support for Israel was being driven because of financial support from AIPAC,  even though the nonprofit organization does not directly make campaign donations to U.S. politicians.

While the organization does not make campaign donations to U.S. politicians, AIPAC members can make individual contributions.

“It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” Omar tweeted during an interview with a journalist, using slang jargon for $100 bills with the picture of a U.S. founding father, Benjamin Franklin, on the currency. Omar then tweeted “AIPAC!” when another user asked who she thinks is paying U.S. politicians to be pro-Israel.

After extensive criticism of her remarks, Omar said Monday, “Anti-Semitism is real, and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”

She added that “at the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics,” whether it is AIPAC, the National Rifle Association or the fossil fuel industry. “It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it.”

Omar is a proponent of the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions — to pressure Israel over its treatment of Palestinians, and has drawn attacks for her comments about Israel.

The American Jewish Committee called her tweets about AIPAC “demonstrably false and stunningly anti-Semitic.”

Before Omar apologized, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said her “use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive. We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.”

Pelosi tweeted that she spoke with Omar and that the two “agreed that we must use this moment to move forward as we reject anti-Semitism in all forms.”

House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other Republican lawmakers called on Democratic leaders to “take action” against Omar and a second Muslim congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, for their criticism of Israel.

Congressman Peter King, a New York Republican, described Omar’s claims alleging AIPAC funding of U.S. lawmakers as “absolutely shameful. It’s immoral to be suggesting that somehow members of Congress are being paid off by Jews, by AIPAC. That goes right into the anti-Semitic bias, which has plagued the world for too long.”

Several Democratic lawmakers also swiftly rebuked Omar.

Congressman Sean Patrick Mahoney of New York said, “My support for Israel is based on shared values and U.S. nat’l security, not money.” He said he was “disappointed” that Omar “is again tweeting dangerous and hurtful tropes.”

Another Democrat, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, said, “It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Israel or the pro-Israeli lobby. Just please be careful to do it in a way that can’t be interpreted as being anti-Semitic.”
…