Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren proposed on Tuesday spending $2 trillion on a new “green manufacturing” program to address climate change that would invest in research and exporting American clean energy technology.

The manufacturing program is the first in a new series of “economic patriotism” proposals Warren is unveiling intended to create American jobs and help U.S. industry.

“This is going to be a big plan for bold structural changes,” Warren said at a campaign rally in Detroit, Michigan.

Warren told the crowd of about 500 in a facility that teaches manufacturing skills that her proposal would be paid for by cutting subsidies in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, by all companies paying more taxes, she said, singling out Amazon.com.

Among the more than 20 Democrats in the field hoping to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in November 2020, Warren has distinguished herself as the most prolific proposer of new policy positions.

Several candidates have offered climate-related policy proposals, including Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who has made it the singular focus of his campaign, and former Vice President Joe Biden, who also announced a climate plan on Tuesday.

Warren said she had not read Biden’s proposal when asked by reporters after her campaign event.

The newest proposal from Warren, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, lays out how she would carry out some of the policy goals outlined in the Green New Deal, which has the backing of liberal members of her party.

Warren began touting the proposal in a campaign trip to Michigan, a Midwestern state with a large manufacturing sector that shocked political observers in 2016 when voters backed Trump and helped propel him to the White House.

“When we’re talking about manufacturing, when we’re talking about real expertise, we’re talking about Detroit,” Warren said.

The plan is likely to draw criticism from opponents who will argue the price tag is too high and that trying to quickly overhaul the U.S. energy sector would have crippling economic effects.

But Warren also released an evaluation of her three-part proposal conducted by Moody’s economist Mark Zandi, who argued the plan would help the economy on a large scale.

“There is no free lunch, and big businesses, oil and gas companies, and multinationals pay for the cost of this plan,” Zandi wrote. “The economy benefits, although it would take more than a decade for this benefit to be fully realized.”

The first part of Warren’s plan calls for spending $400 billion over 10 years on clean energy research and development.

Warren said she believes the United States could one day use no fossil fuels. “It’s part of our technological bandwidth,” she said in a brief news conference after the Detroit rally.

Next, Warren proposed increasing the amount the United States spends on “American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy products for federal, state, and local use, and for export.”

Warren said the United States currently spends $1.5 trillion on defense procurement, which she called “bloated,” and argued that an equal amount should be spent on clean energy.

As part of this proposal, Warren would require companies that sell to the federal government pay their employees at least $15 an hour, that employees receive 12 weeks paid family and medical leave and be able to form unions. Labor practices were included in Green New Deal proposals.

Finally, Warren called for creating a new federal office responsible for trying to get foreign countries to purchase U.S. clean energy technology.

Likening it to programs that help foreign countries buy U.S.-made weapons, Warren would allocate $100 billion to assist countries buying U.S. energy technologies.

While acknowledging ambitious goals that liberal advocates have supported to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050, Warren said it was important that other countries cut emissions as well.

“We need other countries to slash their emissions, and that means we need to supply the world with clean energy products (at low enough prices to displace dirty alternatives) to put us on the right path,” Warren wrote on Medium.
…

The White House on Tuesday directed two more former aides, including top presidential adviser Hope Hicks, to defy subpoenas from Democratic lawmakers investigating whether U.S. President Donald Trump obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Hicks and Annie Donaldson, the former chief of staff for ex-White House counsel Donald McGahn, were told to not comply with his panel’s subpoenas for documents from their time working in the White House. Trump had earlier blocked McGahn’s cooperation with the committee, where an impeachment inquiry would begin against Trump if Democrats decide to pursue it.

Hicks worked for the Trump Organization, the president’s business empire, before he entered politics. She served as his campaign press secretary and later became White House communications director, before resigning in early 2018. She once testified to Congress that she told “white lies” on Trump’s behalf.

Nadler said Hicks has turned over some documents from her time working on Trump’s campaign. The Nadler committee is trying to arrange public testimony from Hicks, McGahn and Donaldson.

Trump has vowed to fight all Democratic subpoenas. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is voting next week on whether to hold McGahn and Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for their defiance of Judiciary Committee subpoenas, with Nadler saying that he expects Hicks and Donaldson also will eventually be held in contempt.

Donaldson was a key witness for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller’s team of lawyers relied on copious notes she took about McGahn’s interactions with Trump, with McGahn telling investigators that Trump directed him to seek Mueller’s dismissal. McGahn ignored the president’s request, then later left his White House job last year to return to private legal practice in Washington.

Mueller outlined several instances of alleged obstruction by Trump in the 448-page report released in April, but said he could not bring any charges against the president because of Justice Department restrictions prohibiting filing of charges against a sitting president. Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein subsequently decided that no criminal charges were warranted against Trump.

Nadler protested the White House stance blocking cooperation from Hicks and Donaldson, saying, “The president has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request.”

 
…

The White House on Tuesday directed two more former aides, including top presidential adviser Hope Hicks, to defy subpoenas from Democratic lawmakers investigating whether U.S. President Donald Trump obstructed justice by trying to thwart the probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said Hicks and Annie Donaldson, the former chief of staff for ex-White House counsel Donald McGahn, were told to not comply with his panel’s subpoenas for documents from their time working in the White House. Trump had earlier blocked McGahn’s cooperation with the committee, where an impeachment inquiry would begin against Trump if Democrats decide to pursue it.

Hicks worked for the Trump Organization, the president’s business empire, before he entered politics. She served as his campaign press secretary and later became White House communications director, before resigning in early 2018. She once testified to Congress that she told “white lies” on Trump’s behalf.

Nadler said Hicks has turned over some documents from her time working on Trump’s campaign. The Nadler committee is trying to arrange public testimony from Hicks, McGahn and Donaldson.

Trump has vowed to fight all Democratic subpoenas. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is voting next week on whether to hold McGahn and Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for their defiance of Judiciary Committee subpoenas, with Nadler saying that he expects Hicks and Donaldson also will eventually be held in contempt.

Donaldson was a key witness for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller’s team of lawyers relied on copious notes she took about McGahn’s interactions with Trump, with McGahn telling investigators that Trump directed him to seek Mueller’s dismissal. McGahn ignored the president’s request, then later left his White House job last year to return to private legal practice in Washington.

Mueller outlined several instances of alleged obstruction by Trump in the 448-page report released in April, but said he could not bring any charges against the president because of Justice Department restrictions prohibiting filing of charges against a sitting president. Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein subsequently decided that no criminal charges were warranted against Trump.

Nadler protested the White House stance blocking cooperation from Hicks and Donaldson, saying, “The president has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request.”

 
…

Congress is finally shipping President Donald Trump a $19.1 billion disaster aid bill, a measure stalled for months by infighting, misjudgment, and a presidential feud with Democrats.

The House is approving the measure in its first significant action as it returns from a 10-day recess. It is slated for a Monday evening vote in which Republicans whose home districts have been hit by hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and fires are set to join with majority Democrats to deliver a big vote for the measure.

Conservative Republicans had held up the bill during the recess, objecting on three occasions to efforts by Democratic leaders to pass the bill by a voice vote requiring unanimity. They say the legislation — which reflects an increasingly permissive attitude in Washington on spending to address disasters that sooner or later hit every region of the country — shouldn’t be rushed through without a recorded vote.

Along the way, House and Senate old-timers have seemed to outmaneuver the White House, though Trump personally prevailed upon Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., to drop a bid to free up billions of dollars for dredging and other harbor projects. The Senate passed the bill by a sweeping 85-8 vote on its way out of Washington May 23, a margin that reflected a consensus that the bill is long overdue.

The measure was initially held up over a fight between Trump and Democrats over aid to Puerto Rico that seems long settled. 

“Some in our government refused to assist our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico who are still recovering from a 2017 hurricane. I’m pleased we’ve moved past that,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. “Because when disaster strikes, we shouldn’t let a ZIP code dictate our response.” 

​Migrant issue

The measure also faced delays amid failed talks on Trump’s $4 billion-plus request to care for thousands of mostly Central American migrants being held at the southern border. The sides narrowed their differences but couldn’t reach agreement in the rush to go on recess but everyone agrees that another bill will be needed almost immediately to refill nearly empty agency accounts to care for migrants.

The measure is largely the same as a version that passed the House last month that Republicans opposed for leaving out the border funding.

“We must work together quickly to pass a bill that addresses the surge of unaccompanied children crossing the border and provides law enforcement agencies with the funding they need,” said top Appropriations Committee Republican Kay Granger of Texas. “The stakes are high. There are serious — life or death — repercussions if the Congress does not act.” 

Among the reasons was a demand by House liberals to block the Homeland Security Department from getting information from federal social welfare authorities to help track immigrants residing in the U.S. illegally who take migrant refugee children into their homes.

​Floods, tornadoes

As the measure languished, disasters kept coming — with failed levees in Arkansas, Iowa and Missouri and tornadoes across Ohio just the most recent examples. The measure is supported by the bipartisan party leadership in both House and Senate.

The legislation is also being driven by Florida and Georgia lawmakers steaming with frustration over delays in delivering help to farmers, towns, and military bases slammed by hurricanes last fall. Flooding in Iowa and Nebraska this spring added to the coalition behind the measure, which delivers much of its help to regions where Trump supporters dominate.

The bill started out as a modest $7.8 billion measure passed in the last days of House GOP control. A $14 billion version advanced in the Pelosi-led chamber in January and ballooned to $19.1 billion by the time it emerged from the floor last month, fed by new funding for community rehabilitation projects, Army Corps of Engineers water and flood protection projects, and rebuilding funds for several military bases, including Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

Many Republicans opposed funding to mitigate future disasters as part of rebuilding projects when Superstorm Sandy funding passed in 2013 only to embrace it now that areas such as suburban Houston need it. Democrats, for their part, held firm for what ended up as roughly $1.4 billion for Puerto Rico, letting Trump feud with the U.S. territory’s Democratic officials for weeks and deflecting political blame for stalling the bill.
…

Congress is finally shipping President Donald Trump a $19.1 billion disaster aid bill, a measure stalled for months by infighting, misjudgment, and a presidential feud with Democrats.

The House is approving the measure in its first significant action as it returns from a 10-day recess. It is slated for a Monday evening vote in which Republicans whose home districts have been hit by hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and fires are set to join with majority Democrats to deliver a big vote for the measure.

Conservative Republicans had held up the bill during the recess, objecting on three occasions to efforts by Democratic leaders to pass the bill by a voice vote requiring unanimity. They say the legislation — which reflects an increasingly permissive attitude in Washington on spending to address disasters that sooner or later hit every region of the country — shouldn’t be rushed through without a recorded vote.

Along the way, House and Senate old-timers have seemed to outmaneuver the White House, though Trump personally prevailed upon Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., to drop a bid to free up billions of dollars for dredging and other harbor projects. The Senate passed the bill by a sweeping 85-8 vote on its way out of Washington May 23, a margin that reflected a consensus that the bill is long overdue.

The measure was initially held up over a fight between Trump and Democrats over aid to Puerto Rico that seems long settled. 

“Some in our government refused to assist our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico who are still recovering from a 2017 hurricane. I’m pleased we’ve moved past that,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. “Because when disaster strikes, we shouldn’t let a ZIP code dictate our response.” 

​Migrant issue

The measure also faced delays amid failed talks on Trump’s $4 billion-plus request to care for thousands of mostly Central American migrants being held at the southern border. The sides narrowed their differences but couldn’t reach agreement in the rush to go on recess but everyone agrees that another bill will be needed almost immediately to refill nearly empty agency accounts to care for migrants.

The measure is largely the same as a version that passed the House last month that Republicans opposed for leaving out the border funding.

“We must work together quickly to pass a bill that addresses the surge of unaccompanied children crossing the border and provides law enforcement agencies with the funding they need,” said top Appropriations Committee Republican Kay Granger of Texas. “The stakes are high. There are serious — life or death — repercussions if the Congress does not act.” 

Among the reasons was a demand by House liberals to block the Homeland Security Department from getting information from federal social welfare authorities to help track immigrants residing in the U.S. illegally who take migrant refugee children into their homes.

​Floods, tornadoes

As the measure languished, disasters kept coming — with failed levees in Arkansas, Iowa and Missouri and tornadoes across Ohio just the most recent examples. The measure is supported by the bipartisan party leadership in both House and Senate.

The legislation is also being driven by Florida and Georgia lawmakers steaming with frustration over delays in delivering help to farmers, towns, and military bases slammed by hurricanes last fall. Flooding in Iowa and Nebraska this spring added to the coalition behind the measure, which delivers much of its help to regions where Trump supporters dominate.

The bill started out as a modest $7.8 billion measure passed in the last days of House GOP control. A $14 billion version advanced in the Pelosi-led chamber in January and ballooned to $19.1 billion by the time it emerged from the floor last month, fed by new funding for community rehabilitation projects, Army Corps of Engineers water and flood protection projects, and rebuilding funds for several military bases, including Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

Many Republicans opposed funding to mitigate future disasters as part of rebuilding projects when Superstorm Sandy funding passed in 2013 only to embrace it now that areas such as suburban Houston need it. Democrats, for their part, held firm for what ended up as roughly $1.4 billion for Puerto Rico, letting Trump feud with the U.S. territory’s Democratic officials for weeks and deflecting political blame for stalling the bill.
…

The Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on June 10 on Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to Donald Trump’s campaign.

The committee will hear testimony from former U.S. attorneys and legal experts, including John Dean, a Trump critic and former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon who served a year in prison in connection with the Watergate scandal.

“We have learned so much even from the redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report,” Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said in a statement.

“These hearings will allow us to examine the findings laid out in Mueller’s report so that we can work to protect the rule of law and protect future elections through consideration of legislative and other remedies,” Nadler said. 

In a 448-page, redacted report released in April, Mueller documented numerous occasions in which Trump sought to quash the probe, including by firing former FBI Director James Comey. Mueller ultimately did not reach a decision as to whether Trump had obstructed justice, however.

The special counsel said last week that even if he had been willing to conclude Trump had committed a crime, he could not have indicted him because of a Justice Department policy that prohibits indicting a sitting president.

” … Our first hearing will focus on President Trump’s most overt acts of obstruction. In the coming weeks, other hearings will focus on other important aspects of the Mueller report,” Nadler said.

The House Judiciary Committee has already held many hearings and sought materials and testimony related to its investigation into whether Trump tried to obstruct Mueller’s probe.

Last month, Attorney General William Barr refused to appear for a scheduled committee hearing before the committee and the White House blocked former White House Counsel Don McGahn from appearing at another hearing.
…

Democratic White House hopeful Cory Booker is rolling out his Iowa steering committee, a team of activists and operatives that features party powerbroker Jerry Crawford, who played a key role in each of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in the state.

Crawford, a Des Moines-area attorney who also played leading roles on Al Gore and John Kerry’s campaigns, said he’s been courted by multiple campaigns but told The Associated Press in an interview he’s backing Booker because of the New Jersey U.S. senator’s positive message.

“I’m very much drawn to his passion for civility and his determination to pursue healing,” Crawford said.

Crawford is among 10 Iowa activists, operatives and elected officials who plan to provide strategic advice and operational support to Booker’s campaign as part of his Iowa steering committee, being rolled out Monday. The group includes four other previously unannounced endorsers: former Iowa state House minority leader Rep. Mark Smith and city councilmembers Dale Todd, of Cedar Rapids, and Mazahir Salih and Bruce Teague, both of Iowa City. Booker’s campaign said it hopes all three will help organize African American support for him in their respective cities.

The other five steering committee members are state Reps. Amy Nielsen and Jennifer Konfrst; Iowa Democratic Party central committee members Landra Jo Reece and Melinda Jones; and former American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees political director Marcia Nichols, all of whom previously expressed their support for Booker.

“From local activists to council members and state representatives, these individuals have been on the forefront of standing up for their communities,” Booker said in a statement.

Crawford, whose weekend conversation with the AP was interrupted by a call from Booker, said he plans to be in touch with the Booker campaign multiple times a week and has already begun efforts to convince other major Iowa political players to get on board with the campaign. Besides gathering support for the candidate over the next nine months, Booker’s team sees the members of his steering committee as key forces on caucus night, the kind of voices who could win over persuadable caucus-goers in key precincts.

With at least 50 staffers on the ground, Booker’s Iowa team is widely seen inside the state as one of the strongest and most seasoned, behind only Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s in numbers. But thus far, Booker’s staffing strength hasn’t translated to support in the polls: Booker still draws only low single-digit support in nationwide and state surveys.

Booker’s staff and advisers dismiss the polls as too early to be predictive and argue that the senator is running more of a slow burn-style campaign that will ensure he has the operation in place to harness any momentum in the fall if he does catch fire — and enough resources to sustain it through the caucuses and beyond.

“This is a horrible time to be one of the front-runners,” Crawford said, noting that early Iowa front-runners “don’t do very well, historically speaking.”

Crawford said he expects to see Booker surge around Thanksgiving, but right now, “Cory’s exactly where you want to be.”

 
…

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday called on California Democrats to unite against Donald Trump, kicking the 2020 presidential campaign into high gear with jabs against the Republican president and a veiled swipe at Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Sanders called Trump “a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and a religious bigot” in a speech capping off a state Democratic convention that drew fourteen of the 24 candidates to make their case before 5,000 delegates, guests and press in the most populous – and most heavily Democratic – U.S. state.

“Together we are going to defeat a president who has the most corrupt administration in history,” Sanders said, “and a president who knows nothing about real American values.”

The San Francisco convention became a window into the forces at work in the Democratic Party as it seeks to recover from Trump’s populist-fueled victory in 2016.

The party’s left-leaning delegates greeted Sanders and liberal U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren like rock stars.

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper drew boos when he said socialist policies would not propel the party to victory, and other moderates were booed for rejecting the idea of a universal public health care system, or Medicare for All.

Former vice president Joe Biden, who leads Sanders in polls for the Democratic nomination in California and nationwide, did not attend the convention, drawing barely veiled criticism from Sanders.

Sanders noted that the fourteen candidates who addressed the convention, as well as some who had “chosen for whatever reason not to be in this room,” offer a variety of ways to approach a campaign against Trump. But Sanders rejected the centrist approach favored by Biden and some other candidates.

On issues like health care, pharmaceutical prices and climate change wracking the country, “there is no middle ground,” Sanders said.

Addressing concerns among some Democrats that a moderate would be more electable than a fiery progressive, Sanders said such an approach would not generate the enthusiasm needed to defeat Trump.

“We will not defeat Donald Trump unless we bring excitement and energy into the campaign and unless we give millions of working people and young people a reason to vote and a reason to believe that politics is relevant to their lives,” Sanders said.

California, which will send nearly 500 delegates to the party’s nominating convention next year, took on new heft for the 2020 campaign after moving its nominating election to March from June. Democrats hold all statewide elective offices in the state, and dominate both houses of the legislature.

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, a native daughter who has been eclipsed in early polling in California by Biden and Sanders, made clear she was not taking her home state for granted.

On Saturday, supporters with signs bearing her name and shouting “Kamala! Kamala!” formed a gauntlet that Sanders was forced to walk through on his way into a labor union breakfast.

“I am here to earn everyone’s support, and I’m going to fight to earn it,” Harris said at a breakfast held by the party’s women’s caucus.

 
…

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday called on California Democrats to unite against Donald Trump, kicking the 2020 presidential campaign into high gear with jabs against the Republican president and a veiled swipe at Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Sanders called Trump “a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and a religious bigot” in a speech capping off a state Democratic convention that drew fourteen of the 24 candidates to make their case before 5,000 delegates, guests and press in the most populous – and most heavily Democratic – U.S. state.

“Together we are going to defeat a president who has the most corrupt administration in history,” Sanders said, “and a president who knows nothing about real American values.”

The San Francisco convention became a window into the forces at work in the Democratic Party as it seeks to recover from Trump’s populist-fueled victory in 2016.

The party’s left-leaning delegates greeted Sanders and liberal U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren like rock stars.

Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper drew boos when he said socialist policies would not propel the party to victory, and other moderates were booed for rejecting the idea of a universal public health care system, or Medicare for All.

Former vice president Joe Biden, who leads Sanders in polls for the Democratic nomination in California and nationwide, did not attend the convention, drawing barely veiled criticism from Sanders.

Sanders noted that the fourteen candidates who addressed the convention, as well as some who had “chosen for whatever reason not to be in this room,” offer a variety of ways to approach a campaign against Trump. But Sanders rejected the centrist approach favored by Biden and some other candidates.

On issues like health care, pharmaceutical prices and climate change wracking the country, “there is no middle ground,” Sanders said.

Addressing concerns among some Democrats that a moderate would be more electable than a fiery progressive, Sanders said such an approach would not generate the enthusiasm needed to defeat Trump.

“We will not defeat Donald Trump unless we bring excitement and energy into the campaign and unless we give millions of working people and young people a reason to vote and a reason to believe that politics is relevant to their lives,” Sanders said.

California, which will send nearly 500 delegates to the party’s nominating convention next year, took on new heft for the 2020 campaign after moving its nominating election to March from June. Democrats hold all statewide elective offices in the state, and dominate both houses of the legislature.

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, a native daughter who has been eclipsed in early polling in California by Biden and Sanders, made clear she was not taking her home state for granted.

On Saturday, supporters with signs bearing her name and shouting “Kamala! Kamala!” formed a gauntlet that Sanders was forced to walk through on his way into a labor union breakfast.

“I am here to earn everyone’s support, and I’m going to fight to earn it,” Harris said at a breakfast held by the party’s women’s caucus.

 
…

President Donald Trump said Sunday that “America has had enough with Mexico,” contending that it is an “abuser” of the United States by not stopping the surge of Central American migrants headed north to seek asylum in the U.S.

Trump, who is threatening to impose a 5 percent tariff on Mexican exports sent to the U.S. unless it blocks the migrants short of the U.S. border, accused Mexico of “taking but never giving. It has been this way for decades.”

On Twitter, Trump said, “Either they stop the invasion of our Country by Drug Dealers, Cartels, Human Traffickers, Coyotes and Illegal Immigrants, which they can do very easily, or our many companies and jobs that have been foolishly allowed to move South of the Border, will be brought back into the United States through taxation (Tariffs).”

Trump’s attacks on Mexico came a day after Mexican President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador suggested his country could clamp down on migration. He said he thinks the United States is ready to discuss its threat to impose the tariff, effective June 10, as a means to combat illegal migration from Central America.

“There is willingness on the part of U.S. government officials to establish dialogue and reach agreement and compromises,” the Mexican leader said.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone and said face-to-face talks between the two would take place on Wednesday in Washington.

“We will be firm and defend the dignity of Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Lopez Obrador called for “dialogue” rather than “coercive measures” and said he expects “good results” from the Washington talks.

Trump set off the dispute last week, posting a policy statement on Twitter.

“On June 10, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by October 1.

U.S. border agents have apprehended an increasing number of people, largely from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, who crossed the southern U.S. border in recent months, many of them hoping to win asylum to stay in the U.S.

In contrast to previous spikes in arrivals, recent groups have included a large number of children, prompting U.S. officials to scramble to support families and children traveling without parents.

The tariff dispute is occurring as Trump is seeking congressional approval for a new U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal. Some Washington analysts have suggested that if Trump imposes the tariff on imports from Mexico, it would imperil passage of the trade pact, but acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney dismissed such concerns, saying the two issues are not connected.

“This is an immigration matter, not a trade issue,” Mulvaney told Fox News Sunday.

He said Trump threatened to impose the tariff “to put pressure on Mexico. Congress will not help us fix the border, so we turned to Mexico.”
…

President Donald Trump said Sunday that “America has had enough with Mexico,” contending that it is an “abuser” of the United States by not stopping the surge of Central American migrants headed north to seek asylum in the U.S.

Trump, who is threatening to impose a 5 percent tariff on Mexican exports sent to the U.S. unless it blocks the migrants short of the U.S. border, accused Mexico of “taking but never giving. It has been this way for decades.”

On Twitter, Trump said, “Either they stop the invasion of our Country by Drug Dealers, Cartels, Human Traffickers, Coyotes and Illegal Immigrants, which they can do very easily, or our many companies and jobs that have been foolishly allowed to move South of the Border, will be brought back into the United States through taxation (Tariffs).”

Trump’s attacks on Mexico came a day after Mexican President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador suggested his country could clamp down on migration. He said he thinks the United States is ready to discuss its threat to impose the tariff, effective June 10, as a means to combat illegal migration from Central America.

“There is willingness on the part of U.S. government officials to establish dialogue and reach agreement and compromises,” the Mexican leader said.

Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone and said face-to-face talks between the two would take place on Wednesday in Washington.

“We will be firm and defend the dignity of Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Lopez Obrador called for “dialogue” rather than “coercive measures” and said he expects “good results” from the Washington talks.

Trump set off the dispute last week, posting a policy statement on Twitter.

“On June 10, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by October 1.

U.S. border agents have apprehended an increasing number of people, largely from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, who crossed the southern U.S. border in recent months, many of them hoping to win asylum to stay in the U.S.

In contrast to previous spikes in arrivals, recent groups have included a large number of children, prompting U.S. officials to scramble to support families and children traveling without parents.

The tariff dispute is occurring as Trump is seeking congressional approval for a new U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade deal. Some Washington analysts have suggested that if Trump imposes the tariff on imports from Mexico, it would imperil passage of the trade pact, but acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney dismissed such concerns, saying the two issues are not connected.

“This is an immigration matter, not a trade issue,” Mulvaney told Fox News Sunday.

He said Trump threatened to impose the tariff “to put pressure on Mexico. Congress will not help us fix the border, so we turned to Mexico.”
…

The Pentagon has told the White House to keep the military out of politics, after someone from the White House directed the Navy to keep the warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“On Friday, May 31, Secretary Shanahan directed his Chief of Staff to speak with the White House Military Office and reaffirm his mandate that the Department of Defense will not be politicized,”  Shanahan’s spokesman Army Lt. Col. Joe Buccino said Sunday.

Eric Chewning, Shanahan’s chief of staff, told the defense secretary that he had reinforced this message to the White House, according to Buccino.

“There’s no room for politicizing the military,” Shanahan told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Seoul. “We take these things seriously, and my office and others will deal with it directly.”

The directive to hide the USS John S. McCain from Trump was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

An email seen by VOA showed discussions about the warship between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

Shanahan confirmed Sunday that the White House Military Office gave the directive that the warship should be hidden from view “directly” to the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, which manages naval operations in the Western Pacific.

“The directive was not carried out,” Shanahan added.

According to Shanahan, officials have told him that a white tarp was placed over the ship’s stern on the days preceding the visit, but the tarp was for “hull preservation” and was removed prior to the president’s visit.

A paint barge was moved the day prior to Trump’s visit “to support ongoing maintenance,” but the barge “did not obscure the view of the ship during the visit,” said Shanahan.

Sailors with the USS John S. McCain and the USS Stethem were on a 96-hour Memorial Day weekend liberty unrelated to the visit and did not participate in the Trump event, he confirmed.

VOA had previously reported these details provided by a U.S. Navy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Shanahan said he had called the late Senator John McCain’s wife “a couple days ago” after news of the incident broke, but declined to discuss the “private conversation.

On Thursday, Shanahan said he did not authorize and was not aware of the White House directive to hide the USS John S. McCain from Trump.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator [John] McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

The president later told reporters outside the White House that whoever was involved in the move was “well meaning” but that he was unaware of the decision to hide the warship.

“I don’t know what happened. I wasn’t involved. I would not have done that,” he said, adding, “I was not a big fan of John McCain in any way, shape or form.”

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.
…

The Pentagon has told the White House to keep the military out of politics, after someone from the White House directed the Navy to keep the warship USS John S. McCain “out of sight” when President Donald Trump visited Japan.

“On Friday, May 31, Secretary Shanahan directed his Chief of Staff to speak with the White House Military Office and reaffirm his mandate that the Department of Defense will not be politicized,”  Shanahan’s spokesman Army Lt. Col. Joe Buccino said Sunday.

Eric Chewning, Shanahan’s chief of staff, told the defense secretary that he had reinforced this message to the White House, according to Buccino.

“There’s no room for politicizing the military,” Shanahan told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft en route to Seoul. “We take these things seriously, and my office and others will deal with it directly.”

The directive to hide the USS John S. McCain from Trump was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

An email seen by VOA showed discussions about the warship between the White House Military Office and an officer with the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet ahead of Trump’s trip.

“USS John McCain needs to be out of sight,” reads the email’s third bullet-pointed request.

“Please confirm #3 will be satisfied,” the email emphasized.

Shanahan confirmed Sunday that the White House Military Office gave the directive that the warship should be hidden from view “directly” to the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, which manages naval operations in the Western Pacific.

“The directive was not carried out,” Shanahan added.

According to Shanahan, officials have told him that a white tarp was placed over the ship’s stern on the days preceding the visit, but the tarp was for “hull preservation” and was removed prior to the president’s visit.

A paint barge was moved the day prior to Trump’s visit “to support ongoing maintenance,” but the barge “did not obscure the view of the ship during the visit,” said Shanahan.

Sailors with the USS John S. McCain and the USS Stethem were on a 96-hour Memorial Day weekend liberty unrelated to the visit and did not participate in the Trump event, he confirmed.

VOA had previously reported these details provided by a U.S. Navy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Shanahan said he had called the late Senator John McCain’s wife “a couple days ago” after news of the incident broke, but declined to discuss the “private conversation.

On Thursday, Shanahan said he did not authorize and was not aware of the White House directive to hide the USS John S. McCain from Trump.

“I would never dishonor the memory of a great American patriot like Senator [John] McCain,” Shanahan told reporters traveling with him. “I’d never disrespect the young men and women who crew that ship.”

Trump tweeted Thursday that he was not informed about the controversy surrounding the USS John S. McCain during his visit to Japan.

The president later told reporters outside the White House that whoever was involved in the move was “well meaning” but that he was unaware of the decision to hide the warship.

“I don’t know what happened. I wasn’t involved. I would not have done that,” he said, adding, “I was not a big fan of John McCain in any way, shape or form.”

Trump frequently feuded with longtime Republican senator and 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who died last year.

The USS McCain was originally named for the senator’s father and grandfather, both Navy admirals, and now honors all three men.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump will be on a state visit to the Britain June 3 to June 5.

What to know for the visit?

It’s not Trump’s first visit to Britain.

What’s so special this time?

Trump was in Britain in July 2018 on a working visit, which involved much less pomp and pageantry than a state visit. On a working visit, the visiting country and not the host country covers the bill.

A state visit is a formal visit by a head of state and is normally done at the invitation of the queen on the advice of her government. Queen Elizabeth II, as the current head of state, will act as Trump’s official host for the duration of the visit.

An invitation for a state visit was extended soon after Trump took office in 2017, but a number of concerns, including security have been hampering plans.

The White House said the upcoming trip would reaffirm the “steadfast and special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.”

Twelve U.S. presidents have visited Britain, though only two were there on state visits: George W. Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011.

What’s on the agenda?

In addition to a private lunch and a state banquet hosted by the queen, the president and the first lady also will attend cultural engagements with other members of the royal family.

They will participate in events to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion during World War II, including a visit to Portsmouth, a launch site for the offensive that led to the liberation of Europe. Other countries’ representatives are expected to attend.

Trump will hold a business round table at St. James’s Palace, and he’ll attend a bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street, the residence and home of British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is resigning after failing to achieve an agreement on Britain’s departure from the European Union. May has said she will resign on June 7, two days after Trump is scheduled to leave.

Trump, who has supported Brexit since his 2016 presidential campaign, has criticized May’s handling of the issue. Responding to a reporter’s question on Thursday, Trump said he might meet with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage — pro-Brexit politicians who are seeking to replace May. Trump said they both were his friends, “very good guys, very interesting people.”

In an interview Friday with British tabloid The Sun, Trump said Boris Johnson would be an “excellent” choice for the Conservative Party leadership. “I think Boris would do a very good job,” he said, adding that his endorsement “could help anybody.”

After his three-day visit to Britain, Trump will fly to Shannon, Ireland, for a bilateral with Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. Trump said he will stay overnight in Doonbeg, the luxury golf resort in County Clare that he bought in 2014.

On June 6, Trump will head to France where he will observe the D-Day anniversary in Normandy, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.

Who else is coming and who are they meeting?

Other than the president and the first lady, the White House has confirmed the president’s adult children also will be on the trip.

They will meet members of the royal family, including Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla Parker Bowles; Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton; and Prince Harry. The Trumps will not be meeting Prince Harry’s wife, Meghan Markle, nor their new baby, Archie. Markle, who is American, is still on maternity leave.

Additionally, Trump will attend a reception at the U.S. Embassy to meet staff and their families.

Where are they staying?

State visitors usually stay with Queen Elizabeth at either Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. President George W. Bush and President Obama both stayed at Buckingham Palace. A spokesperson for the royal household said the Trumps will not be staying with the queen, however, due to renovation work that is being carried out at the royal residence.

Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing a 10-year, $477 million renovation, including major electrical and plumbing work.

Will there be protests?

During Trump’s visit last July, more than 100,000 people protested on the streets of London, according to police. This year, protest organizers say they expect similar numbers.

The main protest, “Together Against Trump,” will take place in London on Tuesday, June 4. Smaller protests are planned elsewhere in Britain.

The protests are organized in general opposition to Trump’s views and policies on issues such as immigration and climate change. The campaign group Stop Trump said, “We will make it clear to the British government that it’s not OK to normalize Trump’s agenda and fear it has sparked.”

The “Trump Baby” — a 6-meter balloon by artist Matt Bonner depicting the president as an infant in a diaper holding a cellphone — is expected to appear, as it did during Trump’s 2018 visit to Britain and during his visits to France and Argentina.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump will be on a state visit to the Britain June 3 to June 5.

What to know for the visit?

It’s not Trump’s first visit to Britain.

What’s so special this time?

Trump was in Britain in July 2018 on a working visit, which involved much less pomp and pageantry than a state visit. On a working visit, the visiting country and not the host country covers the bill.

A state visit is a formal visit by a head of state and is normally done at the invitation of the queen on the advice of her government. Queen Elizabeth II, as the current head of state, will act as Trump’s official host for the duration of the visit.

An invitation for a state visit was extended soon after Trump took office in 2017, but a number of concerns, including security have been hampering plans.

The White House said the upcoming trip would reaffirm the “steadfast and special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.”

Twelve U.S. presidents have visited Britain, though only two were there on state visits: George W. Bush in 2003 and Barack Obama in 2011.

What’s on the agenda?

In addition to a private lunch and a state banquet hosted by the queen, the president and the first lady also will attend cultural engagements with other members of the royal family.

They will participate in events to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion during World War II, including a visit to Portsmouth, a launch site for the offensive that led to the liberation of Europe. Other countries’ representatives are expected to attend.

Trump will hold a business round table at St. James’s Palace, and he’ll attend a bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street, the residence and home of British Prime Minister Theresa May, who is resigning after failing to achieve an agreement on Britain’s departure from the European Union. May has said she will resign on June 7, two days after Trump is scheduled to leave.

Trump, who has supported Brexit since his 2016 presidential campaign, has criticized May’s handling of the issue. Responding to a reporter’s question on Thursday, Trump said he might meet with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage — pro-Brexit politicians who are seeking to replace May. Trump said they both were his friends, “very good guys, very interesting people.”

In an interview Friday with British tabloid The Sun, Trump said Boris Johnson would be an “excellent” choice for the Conservative Party leadership. “I think Boris would do a very good job,” he said, adding that his endorsement “could help anybody.”

After his three-day visit to Britain, Trump will fly to Shannon, Ireland, for a bilateral with Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. Trump said he will stay overnight in Doonbeg, the luxury golf resort in County Clare that he bought in 2014.

On June 6, Trump will head to France where he will observe the D-Day anniversary in Normandy, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.

Who else is coming and who are they meeting?

Other than the president and the first lady, the White House has confirmed the president’s adult children also will be on the trip.

They will meet members of the royal family, including Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla Parker Bowles; Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton; and Prince Harry. The Trumps will not be meeting Prince Harry’s wife, Meghan Markle, nor their new baby, Archie. Markle, who is American, is still on maternity leave.

Additionally, Trump will attend a reception at the U.S. Embassy to meet staff and their families.

Where are they staying?

State visitors usually stay with Queen Elizabeth at either Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. President George W. Bush and President Obama both stayed at Buckingham Palace. A spokesperson for the royal household said the Trumps will not be staying with the queen, however, due to renovation work that is being carried out at the royal residence.

Buckingham Palace is currently undergoing a 10-year, $477 million renovation, including major electrical and plumbing work.

Will there be protests?

During Trump’s visit last July, more than 100,000 people protested on the streets of London, according to police. This year, protest organizers say they expect similar numbers.

The main protest, “Together Against Trump,” will take place in London on Tuesday, June 4. Smaller protests are planned elsewhere in Britain.

The protests are organized in general opposition to Trump’s views and policies on issues such as immigration and climate change. The campaign group Stop Trump said, “We will make it clear to the British government that it’s not OK to normalize Trump’s agenda and fear it has sparked.”

The “Trump Baby” — a 6-meter balloon by artist Matt Bonner depicting the president as an infant in a diaper holding a cellphone — is expected to appear, as it did during Trump’s 2018 visit to Britain and during his visits to France and Argentina.
…

The vast majority of U.S. state voting legislation introduced this year was intended to expand voting access rather than impose restrictions.

Lawmakers in 45 states have been debating at least 647 bills that would expand voting access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. That’s compared with lawmakers in 28 states that have considered at least 82 bills to restrict access.

Voting-related topics under consideration in legislatures this year:

Early voting

Most states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to cast ballots in person before Election Day. This year, lawmakers in New York and Delaware approved early voting in those states. An effort to allow voters in Connecticut to decide whether that state should have early voting did not receive enough support from legislators to make the ballot next year.

Bills that would allow early voting or put the question before voters also were introduced in Maine, Minnesota, Missouri and Virginia.

No-excuse absentee voting

While absentee ballots are available in every state, 19 states require a voter to provide a reason for requesting one. This year, bills that would allow some form of no-excuse absentee voting or put the question before voters were introduced in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire and New York.

​Same-day and Election Day registration

A growing number of states allow people to register and vote on the same day. In most cases, this applies to the early voting period as well as Election Day. Proof of residency and identification are required. States check whether a voter has already cast a ballot and have criminal penalties to deter fraud. 

This year, bills that would allow for same-day voter registration or to put the question before voters were introduced in Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico and New York.

Automatic voter registration

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have started or have plans to implement a system in which residents are automatically registered to vote when they have contact with the state, typically at the state’s motor vehicle agency, unless they decline.

This year, bills that would implement automatic voter registration were introduced in Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and New Hampshire.

Registration assistance

Republicans in some states have expressed concerns about the actions of third-party voter registration groups, specifically pointing to the burden on local election officials when the groups submit forms that are incomplete or contain false information.

In Tennessee, this prompted a law signed recently by Republican Gov. Bill Lee that allows for fines for 100 or more incomplete registration forms in a year. A similar measure was introduced in Arizona.

​Voter identification

Seven states have what has been described as “strict” photo identification requirements, meaning a voter must show a photo ID prior to casting a ballot. In those states, people who do not have an acceptable form of photo ID are directed to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if the voter visits the appropriate election office to present an ID within a certain number of days.

Ten other states have “non-strict” photo identification requirements. Depending on the state, some voters may have the option to sign an affidavit, or poll workers can vouch for their identity. In other cases, voters are directed to cast a provisional ballot, and then election officials determine eligibility without further action required of the voter.

Efforts to implement photo ID requirements in Montana and Wyoming failed this year.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU’s School of Law
…

The vast majority of U.S. state voting legislation introduced this year was intended to expand voting access rather than impose restrictions.

Lawmakers in 45 states have been debating at least 647 bills that would expand voting access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. That’s compared with lawmakers in 28 states that have considered at least 82 bills to restrict access.

Voting-related topics under consideration in legislatures this year:

Early voting

Most states and the District of Columbia allow registered voters to cast ballots in person before Election Day. This year, lawmakers in New York and Delaware approved early voting in those states. An effort to allow voters in Connecticut to decide whether that state should have early voting did not receive enough support from legislators to make the ballot next year.

Bills that would allow early voting or put the question before voters also were introduced in Maine, Minnesota, Missouri and Virginia.

No-excuse absentee voting

While absentee ballots are available in every state, 19 states require a voter to provide a reason for requesting one. This year, bills that would allow some form of no-excuse absentee voting or put the question before voters were introduced in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire and New York.

​Same-day and Election Day registration

A growing number of states allow people to register and vote on the same day. In most cases, this applies to the early voting period as well as Election Day. Proof of residency and identification are required. States check whether a voter has already cast a ballot and have criminal penalties to deter fraud. 

This year, bills that would allow for same-day voter registration or to put the question before voters were introduced in Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico and New York.

Automatic voter registration

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have started or have plans to implement a system in which residents are automatically registered to vote when they have contact with the state, typically at the state’s motor vehicle agency, unless they decline.

This year, bills that would implement automatic voter registration were introduced in Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and New Hampshire.

Registration assistance

Republicans in some states have expressed concerns about the actions of third-party voter registration groups, specifically pointing to the burden on local election officials when the groups submit forms that are incomplete or contain false information.

In Tennessee, this prompted a law signed recently by Republican Gov. Bill Lee that allows for fines for 100 or more incomplete registration forms in a year. A similar measure was introduced in Arizona.

​Voter identification

Seven states have what has been described as “strict” photo identification requirements, meaning a voter must show a photo ID prior to casting a ballot. In those states, people who do not have an acceptable form of photo ID are directed to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if the voter visits the appropriate election office to present an ID within a certain number of days.

Ten other states have “non-strict” photo identification requirements. Depending on the state, some voters may have the option to sign an affidavit, or poll workers can vouch for their identity. In other cases, voters are directed to cast a provisional ballot, and then election officials determine eligibility without further action required of the voter.

Efforts to implement photo ID requirements in Montana and Wyoming failed this year.

Sources: National Conference of State Legislatures and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU’s School of Law
…

Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand has unveiled a comprehensive plan to protect the rights of LGBTQ people to mark the start of Pride Month.

If elected, the New York senator says she’d direct the Justice Department to consider gender identity and sexual orientation a protected class. She would also ban discrimination against transgender members of the military and federally recognize a third gender in identification documents, denoted by an “X” on ID cards.

In a platform announced Saturday, Gillibrand said she’d prohibit gay conversion therapy nationwide and direct public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms matching their identity.

Her proposal would further require health insurance plans to cover hormone therapy for transgender patients, and it would recognize U.S. asylum claims for LGBTQ people fleeing persecution in their home countries.

 
…

VOA Mandarin service’s Libo Lui contributed to this report

SINGAPORE – Since the first week acting U.S. Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan took the reins at the Pentagon, he’s said his top concern is “China, China, China.”

On Saturday, Shanahan told an audience at the annual Shangri-La defense forum that the U.S. would not ignore Chinese behavior, which he says has threatened prosperity in the region.

“It’s not about conflict. It’s not about building walls. This is about security,” Shanahan said.

China is infamous for its theft of other nations’ military and civilian technology, and the U.S. secretary said he took issue with Beijing’s cyber attacks and state-sponsored stealing of intellectual property.

Experts say China has used this theft to narrow the gap between some critical American and Chinese military abilities.

“The kind of advantage that we had against China and the western Pacific during the Cold War is gone for good,” Michael O’Hanlon, a senior defense expert with the Brookings Institution, told VOA.

China also has continued to project more military power beyond its borders, most notably by constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea and placing heavy weapons on them to support territorial claims not recognized under international law.

Speaking to reporters Friday, Shanahan called the moves “excessive,” saying that while the Chinese “argue that it’s defensive, it looks like it’s a bit overkill.”

Recently, the U.S. has pushed for more international patrols in the South China Sea, including one last month with Japan, India and the Philippines.

Bradley Bowman, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said working with allies to combat Chinese aggression in the region will bolster the U.S. position of protecting international waterways key to global trade.

“I think we need to characterize this conflict for what it is. It’s not a conflict between China and the US. It’s a conflict with China and the world,” he said.

Speaking to VOA at the conference, Rep. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said China has to some extent “overplayed their hand.”

“They are seen as a bully in the region by a lot of people. They encroached on people’s territory in a variety of disputes…and in doing that, those countries have turned to the U.S.,” Smith said.

 In his speech Saturday, Shanahan stressed that the U.S. doesn’t want any nation in the region to have to choose positive relations with one partner over another, but, he said, the world deserved a fair playing field.

U.S. allies at the conference expressed anxiety over rising tensions between the two powers, and as one leader pointed out, many believe that if China and the U.S. won’t work together, they risk upending the global system.

 
…

On a trip to Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Britain, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is seeking common ground with European allies, despite fundamental differences over the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and doing business with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei. VOA’s Diplomatic Correspondent Cindy Saine has more from Washington, as talks between Pompeo and German Chancellor Angela Merkel wrapped Friday.
…

President Donald Trump says he’s imposing tariffs on all goods from Mexico until the country stops the flow of undocumented migrants from Central America who cross its territory and enter the United States. Trump tweeted Friday that Mexico “can easily fix this problem. Time for them to finally do what must be done!” Here’s a look at what Mexico has done so far: 

The problem 

In the first three months of 2019, as many as 300,000 migrants — mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — crossed through Mexico to reach the United States. Many were families with children, who cannot be detained for long in the United States.

​How did Mexico’s new president look at immigration?

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador took office on Dec. 1, intending to reduce migration by addressing its root causes: joblessness, poverty and violence in such countries as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. He proposed creating a plan to develop the economies of Central America and southern Mexico, while creating humanitarian and work visas so that Central American migrants could stay in Mexico instead of heading to the U.S.

Did that cause a spike in migration?

The biggest drivers of the migrant exodus were in place before Lopez Obrador took office, and the first massive caravan of migrants formed last year, months before he took office. The caravans came about after tens of thousands of poor Central Americans decided they were a safer option than paying smugglers. New immigration routes for Cubans, Haitians and people from Africa also had opened up through Central America. Lopez Obrador’s offers of visas may have made it easier or safer to cross Mexico, but probably didn’t play a key role in most people’s decision to leave their home countries. 

What changed in Mexico?

A first huge caravan of migrants crossed Mexico headed for the U.S. border in November, before Lopez Obrador took office. The arrival of over 10,000 migrants taxed border facilities and angered Mexicans living in border cities. In January, another caravan crossed Mexico. By the time the third formed in April, it was clear that Mexico could no longer maintain an open-door policy.

In April, the United States began slowing border crossings by reassigning border inspection personnel to deal with the influx of migrants already inside the United States. That started hurting Mexico’s economy, especially as time-sensitive shipments were held up at the border. Separately, migrants began forcing their way across the border with Guatemala, overwhelming border forces and sometimes refusing to register once they arrived. 

​Did U.S. pressure affect Mexican policy?

The border crossing slowdown in April and repeated threats by Trump to close the border or impose tariffs have played a role in changing Mexico’s policies. But Mexicans’ attitudes are also shifting. Increasingly, many Mexicans see large-scale movement of migrants across their country as a threat to their own safety and economy.

Has Mexico helped the U.S. at all?

Mexico is only bound to take in its own citizens when the U.S. expels people at border crossings, and has traditionally refused to take in people from other countries. But starting in late January, Mexico has allowed the United States to return over 6,748 Central Americans to Mexican border cities as they wait to hear about their U.S. asylum claims. The Remain in Mexico policy, as it is known, is meant to reduce the attractiveness of U.S. asylum requests that in the past had allowed claimants to remain in the United States for years as their cases wound their way through the courts.

Has Mexico done more to limit migration?

Mexico staged one of its first large-scale raids on a migrant caravan in April, detaining 371 people on a highway in the southern state of Chiapas. At the same time, Mexico announced that it would no longer grant humanitarian visas at the border with Guatemala after 15,000 people applied in the course of a few weeks. Instead, Mexico encouraged potential migrants to apply for such visas at Mexican consulates in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

Humanitarian visas are still being issued for migrants already in Mexico, but at a very slow pace. Work visas are now limited to only a few southern border states in Mexico where wages are low and few migrants want to stay. When migrants began to hop freight trains toward the U.S. border, as they did in past decades, Mexico started police raids on the train. When Lopez Obrador took office, detentions of migrants were relatively low, with 5,884 migrants deported in January. By the end of May, the figure had risen to 15,654.

​Why don’t migrants ask for asylum in Mexico?

Some do. There have been over 18,000 requests for asylum filed in Mexico in the first four months of 2019, several times the levels of a few years ago. But many migrants say they either don’t feel safe in Mexico, or they want to join relatives already in the United States. Many want to earn more money than is possible in Mexico.

Has Mexico yielded to U.S. immigration pressure in the past?

During a previous surge in unaccompanied minors at the U.S. border in 2014, Mexico’s president at the time, Enrique Pena Nieto, tightened security at Mexico’s porous southern border, including immigration checkpoints and raids on freight trains used by the migrants. 
…

The Trump administration is creating a new position aimed at overhauling America’s immigration system amid an accelerating surge of Central American migrants and asylum-seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.  

The person most likely to hold the job: former Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a conservative lawmaker known for hawkish immigration views.

Why a ‘czar’? 

“Usually, when the president creates a czar, it’s because he feels that there’s not enough interagency coordination going on. And it is true that in the area of dealing with people at the southwest border, while the Department of Homeland Security has the lead, there are other important actors at the border,” said Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow at Washington-based think tank Brookings Institution. 

Previous “czars” appointed by the White House over the years have focused on coordinating policy across different agencies to combat illegal recreational drugs or domestic violence.  

Kamarck, an expert on the U.S. government, sees Cuccinelli’s role as helping the administration try to get past the legal challenges that have blocked some of its immigration policies.    

“As a [former] attorney general, he will be more sensitive to the legal problems,” she said.   

Though the White House has not explained what Cuccinelli would oversee, a senior White House official told VOA, “He is expected to take a senior position at DHS where he will work on issues involving immigration.” 

Cuccinelli is an outspoken immigration hardliner. Political observers interviewed by VOA said his views largely align with President Donald Trump’s outlook.  

Cuccinelli has supported denying citizenship to American-born children of parents living in the U.S. illegally. As attorney general he allowed American workers to file lawsuits when an employer knowingly hired someone living in the country illegally. He also restricted who qualifies for in-state tuition at public universities to citizens or legal residents. 

Administration role 

The Washington Post reported Trump would prefer to appoint Cuccinelli to the position of director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that administers the country’s legal immigration system. 

The current USCIS director, L. Francis Cissna, communicated to his staff he is expected to leave the post on June 1. 

Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy for the Center for Migration Studies and an outspoken critic of the administration’s hardline policies, said there is “real concern” about having Cuccinelli as USCIS director. 

“He thinks we have too many immigrants as it is,” Appleby said. As USCIS director, where he would have authority over who gets legal permanent resident status and who gets citizenship, he could “do a lot of damage to people who have followed the law.”  

Trump also supports drastically reducing the number of immigrants coming to the United States, telling his supporters at a rally in May, “The country is full. We don’t want people coming up here.” 

Appleby said Cuccinelli could try to further restrict immigration by extending the processing time it takes for immigrants to become citizens, effectively making it much more difficult for those who are waiting in legal limbo.  

“He could turn back immigrants, refugees, who may legally have a right to come to the country,” Appleby said.

The Trump administration has argued that many people who come to the United States and declare themselves refugees do not in fact qualify for such status.  

Virginia attorney general

As Virginia attorney general in 2010 under former Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell, Cuccinelli issued an opinion stating that Virginia law enforcement officials had the authority to question individuals about their immigration status during a stop or arrest. 

The American Civil Liberties Union at the time sent a letter to Virginia police chiefs and sheriffs urging them not to follow the opinion from Cuccinelli because it was “legally faulty and would lead to adverse public safety consequences.” 

“Because most police officers have not been trained to enforce immigration law, allowing them to question individuals about immigration status is an invitation for racial profiling and potential equal protection violations,” the letter said.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2012 and a settlement with plaintiffs in 2016 have since erased most of a law in Arizona that gave police similar authority.  

Kamarck said given Cuccinelli’s history as a “very tough and very conservative attorney general of the state of Virginia,” he might be able to help the president carry out his more restrictive immigration policies, despite the court challenges.  

Trump administration officials “really have had a hard time implementing the things that they say [they would do.] So I suspect Cuccinelli … has enough government experience and enough legal experience to be a help to them if, in fact, the president will listen to him,” Kamarck said.  

Cuccinelli’s position in the Trump administration is expected to be announced soon. 
…

VOA News Center Associate Producer Jesusemen Oni contributed reporting from Washington. 

WASHINGTON — Mexico’s foreign minister says he has starting negotiating with U.S. officials after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexican products related to the migrant surge at the border.

Marcelo Ebrard said on Twitter Friday that he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by phone and said face-to-face talks between the two would take place Wednesday in Washington.

“The summit to resolve the U.S. dispute with our country will be on Wednesday in Washington,” Ebrard said. “We will be firm and defend the dignity of Mexico.”

Earlier Friday, Mexico’s president responded to the U.S. tariff threats with caution urging “dialogue” over “coercive measures.”

“I want to reiterate that we are not going to fall into any provocation; but we are going to be prudent, and we are going to respect the authorities of the United States and President Donald Trump,” said Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

His statement Friday morning followed a two-page letter to Trump made public late Thursday, similar in tone, responding to Trump’s announcement on Twitter earlier in the day that the United States would begin imposing an escalating tax on imports from Mexico.

“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” Trump tweeted. Until “the illegal immigration problem is remedied” tariffs will continue to rise monthly, going as high as 25% by October 1.

U.S. border agents have apprehended an increasing number of people, largely from Central America, who crossed the southern U.S. border without authorization in recent months.

In contrast to previous spikes in arrivals, recent groups have included a large number of children, prompting U.S. officials to scramble to support families and children traveling without parents, some of whom are seeking asylum.

In an indication of the pressing demands at the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection solicited bids for the purchase of tens of thousands of baby diapers, wipes and bottles this past week, according to documents reviewed by VOA on a government contracting website.

Mexico has the “absolute ability and authority to do a lot more than they’re doing,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Friday.

Reaction from Mexico

Lopez Obrador posted a letter to Twitter after Trump’s announcement that said, “Social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures.”

Trump’s announcement of the new tariffs came on the same day Mexico began the formal process of ratifying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (US MCA) on trade.

Mexico’s deputy foreign minister for North America, Jesus Seade, says such tariffs would be disastrous, expressing more alarm than the Mexican president.

“If this threat is carried out, it would be extremely serious,” he told reporters. “If this is put in place, we must respond vigorously.”

For one trade expert, who previously served as Mexico’s ambassador to China, a top trading partner for that country and the U.S., the timing of Trump’s tariff statement raises questions about the future of the US MCA.

“By mixing two things — immigration and now just lately drug flow with trade — I think it confuses the issue,” said Jorge Guajardo, a senior director at the Washington-based international trade consulting firm McLarty Associates.

The trade deal “was a triumph for all three countries, and now of course, that all comes into doubt,” Guajardo added.

Marking progress

Some Republican members of Congress but no Democrats were consulted about White House plan, according to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Asked in a hastily arranged conference call with reporters about benchmarks Mexico would need to achieve to have the tariffs lifted, Mulvaney said there needs to be significant and substantial reductions in arrivals from Central America crossing into the United States.

“We’re going to take this and look at it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis,” Mulvaney said. “We are interested in seeing the Mexican government act tonight, tomorrow.”

Trump has repeatedly accused Mexico of not doing enough to stop Central American migrants from traveling through the country on their way to the United States.

The U.S. system, however, is not infallible. While the country has increased its apprehension rate at the border in recent years, U.S. border agents stop an estimated 65% to 80% of people crossing into the country without authorization, according to a 2018 DHS report. 
…

A Republican redistricting expert advocated for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census to give an electoral edge to white people and Republicans, opponents of the move alleged in a court filing Thursday.

The filing in Manhattan federal court said a trove of newly discovered documents revealed that Thomas Hofeller, a longtime Republican gerrymandering guru, played a key role in pushing the Trump administration to include a citizenship question on the census for the first time since 1950.

GOP strategist

Lawyers for opponents of adding the question said the files, found on Hofeller’s computer drives after he died last year, also showed that he contributed vital language to a Justice Department letter used to justify the question on the grounds that it was needed to protect minority voting rights.

In reality, the lawyers argued, the documents show the census change is part of a wider Republican effort to restrict the political power of Democrats and Latino communities.

“The new evidence reveals that Dr. Thomas Hofeller, the longtime Republican redistricting specialist, played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that defendants obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations,” the filing said.

The change, announced in spring 2018, seems poised for approval by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in April and is likely to rule by July. It’s not yet clear if the Hofeller documents might affect the pending case, though the American Civil Liberties Union apprised the high court of the latest developments Thursday in a letter signed by Dale Ho, director of the group’s voting rights project and a lawyer who argued against adding the question before the top court.

States, cities and rights groups had sued in New York and elsewhere, arguing that the question would suppress the count of immigrants and strengthen congressional representation and funding for areas where mostly Republicans reside. States with large numbers of immigrants tend to vote Democratic.

Lawyers for President Donald Trump’s administration say the commerce secretary has wide discretion to design the census questionnaire.

On Thursday, lawyers for groups including the ACLU said that the files show that a Justice Department official and a transition official for President Donald Trump testified falsely by hiding Hofeller’s role in asking for the question. They asked U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman to issue sanctions or consider finding individuals in contempt.

Ho, of the ACLU, said documents found after Hofeller’s death last year revealed the administration’s “goal was to dilute the voting power of minority communities. That’s literally the diametric opposite of what the administration has been saying all along.”

Furman gave the Justice Department until Monday to respond. An official with the department declined to comment on the record.

Furman set a hearing in the case for June 5.

Daughter turns over documents

The Hofeller documents cited by lawyers were discovered when his estranged daughter found four external computer hard drives and 18 thumb drives in her father’s Raleigh, North Carolina, home after his death last summer.

The New York Times reported that she contacted Common Cause, which had recently sued in state court to challenge North Carolina’s legislative districts, which had been drawn by Hofeller.

Furman, the federal judge, ruled in January that the question could not be included on the census, saying fewer people would respond to the census and that the process used to add it was faulty. Federal judges in California and Maryland reached similar conclusions in separate lawsuits.

Besides the citizenship question, the Supreme Court also is expected to decide within weeks, in cases from North Carolina and Maryland, whether to set limits for the first time on drawing districts for partisan advantage.
…