RiyadMedia

The celebration of the United States’ 243rd birthday looks different this year, as President Trump stages his own military-themed celebration, in addition to the now-traditional ceremony at the U.S. Capitol. VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports on how the capital city, Washington, D.C., is preparing.
 

…

Editor’s note: A look at the veracity of claims by political figures

WASHINGTON — In his Fourth of July remarks, President Donald Trump will be celebrating the armed forces and showcasing what he’s done for them. But in recent days, he has falsified his record on military matters on several fronts.

He’s claimed, for example, that he came up with the “genius idea” of giving veterans private health care so they don’t have to wait for Veterans Affairs appointments, only to find out that others had thought of it but failed to get it done.

President Barack Obama signed the law getting it done in 2014.

Trump also made the flatly false statement that he won troops their first raise in a decade, suggested he’s made progress reducing veteran suicides that is not backed up by the numbers, and contradicted the record in claiming that North Korea is cooperating on the return of the remains of U.S. troops.

A look at his statements on military matters and personnel, some of which may be heard from the stage Thursday or in tweets:

Military pay

Trump, addressing military members: “You also got very nice pay raises for the last couple of years. Congratulations. Oh, you care about that. They care about that. I didn’t think you noticed. Yeah, you were entitled. You know, it was close to 10 years before you had an increase. Ten years. And we said, ‘It’s time.’ And you got a couple of good ones, big ones, nice ones.” — remarks Sunday at Osan Air Base, South Korea.

The facts: He’s been spreading this falsehood for more than a year, soaking up cheers from crowds for something he didn’t do. In May 2018, for example, he declared to graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy: “We just got you a big pay raise. First time in 10 years.”

U.S. military members have received a pay raise every year for decades.

Trump also boasts about the size of the military pay raises under his administration, but there’s nothing extraordinary about them.

Several raises in the last decade have been larger than service members are getting under Trump — 2.6% this year, 2.4% last year, 2.1% in 2017.
Raises in 2008, 2009 and 2010, for example, were all 3.4% or more.

Pay increases shrank after that because of congressionally mandated budget caps. Trump and Congress did break a trend that began in 2011 of pay raises that hovered between 1% and 2%.

Veterans’ suicide

Trump: “On average, 20 veterans and members take their own lives every day. … We’re working very, very hard on that. In fact, the first time I heard the number was 23, and now it’s down somewhat. But it’s such an unacceptable number.” — call on June 25 with military veterans.

The facts: Trump incorrectly suggests that he helped reduce veterans’ suicide, noting that his administration was working “very, very hard” on the problem and that in fact the figure had come down. But no decline has been registered during his administration. There was a drop during the Obama administration, but that might be because of the way veterans’ suicides are counted.

The Veterans Affairs Department estimated in 2013 that 22 veterans were taking their lives each day on average (not 23, as Trump put it). The estimate was based on data submitted from fewer than half of the states. In 2016, VA released an estimate of 20 suicides per day, based on 2014 data from all 50 states as well as the Pentagon. 

The estimated average has not budged since. 

Trump has pledged additional money for suicide prevention and created in March a Cabinet-level task force that will seek to develop a national roadmap for suicide prevention, part of a campaign pledge to improve health care for veterans. 

Still, a report by the Government Accountability Office in December found the VA had left millions of dollars unspent that were available for suicide prevention efforts. The report said VA had spent just $57,000 out of $6.2 million available for paid media, such as social-media postings, thanks in part to leadership turmoil at the agency.

North Korea

Trump, on North Korea’s help in returning the remains of U.S. troops from the Korean War: “The remains are coming back as they get them, as they find them. The remains of our great heroes from the war. And we really appreciate that.” — remarks Sunday to Korean business leaders in Seoul.

Trump: “We’re very happy about the remains having come back. And they’re bringing back — in fact, we were notified they have additional remains of our great heroes from many years ago.” — remarks June 28 in Japan.

The facts: His account is at odds with developments.

No remains of U.S. service members have been returned since last summer and the U.S. suspended efforts in May to get negotiations on the remains back on track in time to have more repatriated this year. It hopes more remains may be brought home next year.

The Pentagon’s Defense POW-MIA Accounting Agency, which is the outfit responsible for recovering U.S. war remains and returning them to families, “has not received any new information from (North Korean) officials regarding the turn over or recovery of remains,” spokesman Charles Prichard said Wednesday.

Prichard said his agency is “still working to communicate” with the North Korean army “as it is our intent to find common ground on resuming recovery missions” in 2020.

Last summer, in line with the first summit between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un that June, the North turned over 55 boxes of what it said were the remains of an undetermined number of U.S service members killed in the North during the 1950-53 war. So far, six Americans have been identified from the 55 boxes.

U.S. officials have said the North has suggested in recent years that it holds perhaps 200 sets of American war remains. Thousands more are unrecovered from battlefields and former POW camps.

The Pentagon estimates that 5,300 Americans were lost in North Korea.

Health care

Trump, on approving private-sector health care for veterans: “I actually came up with the idea. I said, ‘Why don’t we just have the veterans go out and see a private doctor and we’ll pay the cost of the doctor and that will solve the problem?’ Because some veterans were waiting for 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, they couldn’t get any service at all. I said, ‘We’ll just send them out.’ And I thought it was a genius idea, brilliant idea. And then I came back and met with the board and a lot of the people that handled the VA. … They said, ‘Actually, sir, we’ve been trying to get that passed for 40 years, and we haven’t been able to get it.’ … I’m good at getting things done. … It’s really cut down big on the waits.” — call on June 25 with military veterans.

Trump: “We passed VA Choice and VA Accountability to give our veterans the care that they deserve and they have been trying to pass these things for 45 years.” — Montoursville, Pennsylvania, rally May 20.

The facts: Trump did not invent the idea of giving veterans the option to see private doctors outside the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system at government expense. Nor is he the first president in 40 years to pass the program.

Congress approved the private-sector Veterans Choice health program in 2014 and Obama signed it into law. Trump expanded it.

Under the expansion, which took effect last month, veterans still may have to wait weeks to see a doctor. The program allows veterans to see a private doctor if their VA wait is 20 days (28 for specialty care) or their drive is only 30 minutes.

Indeed, the VA says it does not expect a major increase in veterans seeking care outside the VA under Trump’s expanded program, partly because waiting times in the private sector are typically longer than at VA.

“The care in the private sector, nine times out of 10, is probably not as good as care in VA,” VA Secretary Robert Wilkie told Congress in March.

…

U.S. President Donald Trump contended Wednesday that the government will still try to ask a question about citizenship in the once-a-decade census in 2020, a day after top officials announced they had given up on including the citizenship question following a Supreme Court ruling on the matter last week.

“The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE!” Trump claimed on Twitter. “We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.”

The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 3, 2019

But his comment sowed confusion about the inclusion of the question, coming after both the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department said they had abandoned the effort for the census that starts April 1. The government has said it already has started printing the questionnaires this week in order to have them all ready for use in nine months.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said, “I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census,” for the first time since 1950. “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department, is to conduct a complete and accurate census.”

In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in ruling that the reasoning the Trump administration offered for including the citizenship question — that the information was needed to protect minority voting rights — was “contrived” and did not meet the standards for a clear explanation of why it should be asked.

Government officials offered no explanation of why they were dropping their effort to include the question, but were confronting weeks and maybe months of new challenges to the question. The census is important because it determines how many seats in the House of Representatives each state is allotted and how $800 billion in federal aid is disbursed.

Trump’s Democratic opponents have claimed that including the question is a Republican ploy to scare immigrants in to not participating in the census out of fear that immigration officials might target them for deportation when they determine that they are in the country illegally. An undercount in Democrat-leaning areas with large immigrant and Latino populations could reduce congressional representation for such states and cut federal aid.

After the Supreme Court heard arguments on the citizenship question but before it ruled, documents emerged from the files of a deceased Republican election districting expert showing that the citizenship question was aimed at helping Republicans gain an electoral edge over Democrats.  

Although the citizenship question has not been asked in 70 years, Trump tweeted that it was”A very sad time for America when the Supreme Court of the United States won’t allow a question of ‘Is this person a Citizen of the United States?’ to be asked on the #2020 Census!” 

When the high court issued its ruling, Trump called it “totally ridiculous.”

…

The U.S. Justice Department’s watchdog will review the role of the FBI and Justice Department in a reversal of plans to move FBI headquarters to the Washington suburbs, Democratic congressional leaders said Wednesday. 

The department’s inspector general informed House committee leaders of the review in a letter on Tuesday after two committees had pushed him to investigate the reversal. 

The leaders of four House committees, including Oversight and Transportation, who are pursuing their own investigations into the shift of FBI headquarters plans, said in a statement they welcomed the watchdog’s examination. 

Before he was elected, U.S. President Donald Trump had favored a government plan to move FBI headquarters from downtown Washington, where it is housed in a crumbling building adorned with safety nets to catch falling chunks of concrete. It is also too small for the bureau’s thousands of local employees. 

Current preference

Trump now favors replacing the building with a new structure in the same location. 

Democrats have alleged that Trump, a real estate developer before becoming president, had expressed interest in the FBI’s move so he could buy the land where the current headquarters sits and redevelop it. 

The Democrats say Trump, who owns a hotel down the street from the current FBI building, changed his position on the headquarters move after he became president and was disqualified from bidding for the land. 

The watchdog for the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), which manages federal buildings, said last year that the revised plan would be more expensive than the original proposal to move the headquarters. 

The GSA’s inspector general also found that the GSA administrator had not disclosed a meeting with the president on the subject. 

The White House and the GSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department declined to comment. 

…

Written in 1787, the U.S. Constitution is the world’s oldest written charter of government in use today.

Most Americans are familiar with its first three words – “We the People.” Yet they “don’t understand” the venerable document, says Kimberly Wehle, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore.

To get readers interested in the charter, Wehle recently published “How to Read the Constitution — and Why,” a back-to-the-basics, accessible primer on the U.S. charter of government written for a time when many on the left and some on the right think the Constitution is under assault.

The book’s launch coincides with the end of a consequential term for the Supreme Court, during which President Donald Trump’s second court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, joined the bench following a contentious confirmation hearing. It also coincides with the nation’s 243rd observance of Independence Day, July 4.

VOA spoke with Wehle about the Supreme Court and how and why to read the Constitution. The following excerpts have been edited for clarity and length.
 
The U.S. Constitution is the oldest surviving written constitution in use today. What makes it so enduring?

Kimberly Wehle: It’s enduring because of the structure of the first part of the Constitution. That is not the Bill of Rights. But the structure of the first part of the Constitution assumes that there is no person in elected office or appointed office that’s above the law. So each branch is checked by the other two branches and so far, that balance of power ensuring that the human desire to amass unlimited power is checked. I think that that is one of the most enduring elements.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia once said that the “real key to the distinctiveness of America” in the world, what makes America a free country, is not the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but rather the structure of government enshrined in the Constitution. Do you agree?

Wehle: The framers, as Justice Scalia indicated, didn’t include express rights in the original Constitution, because they believed that the three-part structure would preserve rights. So there’s a direct connection between the checks and balances and the separation of powers (on the one hand) and individual rights (on the other), meaning the three-part system ensures that the government doesn’t arbitrarily bully individual people. If there’s bullying going on, one of the other two branches is situated to check that.  

And yet every branch of government, it seems, over time has accumulated some degree of power at the expense of the other. For example, the Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, yet American presidents have waged war without clear congressional authorization. How did that happen?

Wehle: There’s a chicken-and-egg issue with the power to declare war and the commander-in-chief power. Scholars generally believe that Congress has to declare war. The president can use the military to respond to threats and attacks.  As we saw during the George W. Bush administration, Congress authorized the president to preemptively start a war. But when people in office and in the judiciary don’t enforce parts of the Constitution, they cease to really have meaning.

So how do you read the Constitution? Do you examine the text to decipher its original meaning, as the so-called “originalists” do, or do you approach it as a “living document” open to interpretation, as the so-called “judicial” activists do.

Wehle: I disagree with that distinction. In the book, I compare the Constitution to reading a poem, for example, where, you know, there’s ambiguous language, and there are various ways of reading that ambiguity and deciding what it means. The Constitution is the same way. People bring different points of view to it. But the idea that it’s clear, most of the time is just not accurate.

In your book, you make an urgent plea to Americans to read their own Constitution, a text many are taught in grade school. Why read it?

Wehle: Because we’re overloaded in our society with information, online social media, 24-hour cable news and information, various political points of view, people feeding bottom lines to us. And of course, as we saw in the 2016 presidential elections, some of what we get is actually planted — and it’s deliberately false — by Russians, in this instance, that aren’t really interested in promoting American democracy.  So in order to cut through this polarized conversation, my suggestion as an educator, which I tell my students, is start with the text. If you want to know what (special counsel) Robert Mueller indicted someone for, read the indictment. If you want to know what your Constitution says, start with the language itself. That’s what the Supreme Court does.

What benefit would citizens of other countries derive from reading the American Constitution?

Wehle: There are a lot of eyes on America for lots of reasons, including this reputation for having, freedoms, which, I think, (are) being challenged and tarnished internationally. So it benefits, given that the United States is a place that a lot of other countries watch. It is beneficial for everyone to understand how our Constitution works, and the dangers if it stops working.

The Supreme Court is the nation’s top appellate court as well as its top constitutional court. What role does it play in American life?

Wehle: It really functions like a mini legislature, and I say that with great care. Meaning when a case gets to the Supreme Court on an important issue, and the court issues a decision under the Constitution, that can’t even be amended by a statute. The Constitution is the boss of all bosses.

So if the court decides that there’s a constitutional question lurking in a statute passed by Congress and then it rules one way or the other under the Constitution, the only way to change that outcome is to amend the Constitution, or amend the configuration of the court such that they will reverse precedent. Both of those are extremely, extremely hard to do.  

The Supreme Court is deeply ideologically divided. Many critics see the justices on the court as politicians in robes. Help our international audience understand how the judiciary in this country became so politicized?

Wehle: I don’t think they’re politicians in robes, because politicians tend to make decisions in America based on getting more money to win elections. So they will set aside principle, they’ll set aside policy outcomes, just for that objective.

That’s not the case at the Supreme Court. That being said, it’s unfortunate what happened with Justice Kavanaugh. It’s the most glaring example of how the Senate has allowed the confirmation process to become politicized.

But once justices are on the court, their decision on how to construe vague language will depend on their judicial philosophy. Some justices might believe Congress should have a lot more power over executive branch agencies. Some justices might believe the president has unlimited power in certain circumstances, like when it comes to the use of the military.

Other justices, the liberal wing, are more interested in making sure individual people retain as many rights versus the government. These are philosophical differences over how the government should work.

…

Looking to improve his standing with black voters, Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg pitched a plan Tuesday to tackle “systemic racism” he said exists in housing, health care, education, policing and other aspects of American life. 

The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, told a predominantly black audience at a Chicago meeting of Rainbow PUSH, the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s civil rights organization, that his plan includes providing more opportunity for minority businesses, strengthening voting rights and reforming the criminal justice system.

He said he would cut incarceration numbers in half by legalizing marijuana and eliminating prison time for simple drug possession. He wants to restore voting rights for some 6 million Americans with felony convictions and supports “bold and meaningful action” on reparations for the descendants of slaves.

Buttigieg’s speech followed the June 16 fatal shooting of a black man by a white South Bend police officer, which he said re-exposed a “racial chasm” between black and white residents in the racially diverse community of roughly 100,000 people. The shooting prompted Buttigieg to leave the campaign trail, and it has threatened to erode the already marginal backing he’s received from black voters for his 2020 bid so far. 
 
“This is deeper than politics. This is not just a political problem, and it is not just a police problem, and it is not just my problem or my city’s problem,” he said Tuesday. “And it is certainly not just a black problem. This is an American problem. And it requires nationwide American solutions.”

Buttigieg is among the top tier of 2020 candidates, bringing in almost $25 million in the second quarter — an amount expected to exceed many of his rivals’ totals. But he’s struggled to gain support from black voters who are crucial to a Democratic victory. 
 
He told reporters he needs to get to know more voters, and they need to “see me in action for a longer period of time” and learn more about the agenda he’s dubbed his “Douglass Plan,” after abolitionist Frederick Douglass. 
 
“Look, when you’re new on the scene, and you’re not from a community of color, you’ve got to work much harder in order to earn that trust because trust is largely a function of quantity time,” he said. “I’m committed to doing that work. But I think the most important question is: Will our policy benefit black Americans and all Americans? And if that happens, and if I can show that, I think the politics will start to take care of themselves.”
 

…

In a stinging defeat for President Donald Trump, his administration has ended its effort to add a citizenship  question to the 2020 U.S. census, saying that it will begin printing forms that do not include the contentious query.

White House and Justice Department officials confirmed the decision, which came in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling on June 27 that faulted the Trump administration for its original attempt to add the question.

Although the court left open the possibility of the administration adding the question, there was little time left for the government to come up with a new rationale.

The government had said in court filings that it needed to finalize the details of the questionnaire by the end of June.

Trump had suggested delaying the census so that the question could be added.

…

Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker would “virtually eliminate immigration detention” if elected, his campaign said on Tuesday, including ending the use of for-profit detention facilities and minimizing the time unaccompanied children spend in custody.

Booker, 50, is among some two dozen Democrats seeking to take on Republican U.S. President Donald Trump in next year’s election.

Trump has made clamping down on illegal immigration the centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda. He has railed against Central American migrants crossing into the United States from Mexico – many of whom are seeking refuge under U.S. asylum laws – and has sought to build a wall along vast portions of the U.S. southern border.

US 2020 Hopeful Cory Booker Rolls Out Iowa Steering Committee

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.

But U.S. agencies have struggled to keep up with a surge of mostly families arriving at the border, straining resources and overcrowding facilities. Last week, lawyers asked a federal judge to intervene after they detailed several instances in which children were being held in unsanitary, unsafe conditions.

“On day one of my presidency, I will take immediate steps to end this administration’s moral vandalism,” Booker said in a statement. “Our country must have an immigration system that reflects our values, not one that strips dignity away from people fleeing danger, threats, and violence.”

Booker’s plan would require border facilities operated by the U.S. Border Patrol, including those holding children, to comply with stringent health standards or face closure.

He would also phase out contracts with private prison operators such as GEO Group Inc and CoreCivic Inc , which operate a number of facilities for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to house adult migrants awaiting court proceedings.

In addition to targeting detention centers, Booker’s plan would reverse the Trump administration’s decision to end protections for “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Trump’s decision next year. The program will remain in place until that case is resolved.

Booker also would do away with Trump administration rules intended to restrict asylum claims and refugees, including Trump’s entry ban for several Muslim-majority countries and a requirement that asylum seekers remain in Mexico until their U.S. court hearing.

The plan calls for providing legal counsel to all immigrants and making it easier for them to post bond in immigration court proceedings.

Several other Democratic contenders have released immigration plans, including former Secretary of Housing Julian Castro, U.S. senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris and former U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke.

…

Upon returning from the G-20 summit, U.S. President Trump claimed foreign policy victory, saying that “much was accomplished.” But what exactly was achieved during the three-day trip? White House Correspondent Patsy Widakuswara unpacks the president’s whirlwind trip to Osaka and Seoul.

…

The Department of Homeland Security is investigating a report that current and former U.S. Border Patrol agents are part of a Facebook group posting racist, sexist, and violent posts about migrants and Hispanic lawmakers.

The ProPublica investigative site says the posts include sexually explicit images and remarks mocking migrant deaths, including the highly publicized death of a Salvadoran man and his 2-year-old daughter who drowned in the Rio Grande river.

The Facebook group is called “I’m 10-15,” the Border Patrol’s code for “Aliens in Custody.”

ProPublica says the agents reacted to the death of a 16-year-old boy who died in Border Patrol custody by saying: “Oh, well. If he dies, he dies.”

They accused Democrats and liberals of possibly faking the photograph of the man and his daughter lying face down in the river, saying they have never seen “floaters” look so “clean.”

Other alleged remarks included plans to throw burritos at Hispanic members of Congress and describing female members in sexist profane language.

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a favorite target of the group. One doctored photograph shows her performing a sexual act on U.S. President Donald Trump.

“How on Earth can CBP’s culture be trusted to care for refugees humanely?” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren says the comments by the agents are “completely unacceptable” and is demanding answers.

Democratic Congressman Joe Kennedy says they are “disgusting” and says guilty agents should be fired.

Border Patrol chief Carla Provost says the Facebook posts are “completely inappropriate and contrary to the honor and integrity I see and expect from our agents day in and day out.”

She said any employees found to be a part of the group will be held accountable.

The union representing the agents has also condemned the posts and say they do a “great disservice” to the overwhelming majority of employees who do their jobs with honor.

According to the Customs and Border Protection agency, employees are forbidden from making “abusive, derisive, profane, or harassing statements, gestures” or displays of hatred based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

When asked about the report Monday, President Donald Trump said Border Patrol personnel are “patriots” and “great people.”

“I don’t know what they’re saying about members of Congress. I know that the Border Patrol is not happy with the Democrats in Congress,” he said. “I will say the Republicans do want border security.”

Ocasio-Cortez was part of a delegation of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who visited two border patrol stations along the U.S.-Mexico border where migrants are being held in what lawyers have reported as squalid conditions.

She described what she saw as “horrifying.”

“It is hard to understate the enormity of the problem. We’re talking systemic cruelty w/ a dehumanizing culture that treats them like animals,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter.

Rep. Joaquin Castro said many of the migrants they spoke to reported not having bathed for 15 days, while some said they had been held for 50 days and some said they were separated from their children.

“They asked us to take down their names and let everyone know they need help. They also feared retribution,” Castro wrote on Twitter. “All Americans must help to change this system.”

…

Straining for deals on trade and nukes in Asia, President Donald Trump hailed a meeting with North Korea’s leader that he falsely claimed President Barack Obama coveted, asserted a U.S. auto renaissance that isn’t and wrongly stated air in the U.S. is the cleanest ever as he dismissed climate change. 

He also ignored the reality in suggesting that nobody had implicated Saudi’s crown prince in the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump’s own intelligence agencies and a U.N. investigator, in fact, have pointed a finger at the prince.

The president’s misstatements over the weekend capped several days of extraordinary claims, including a false one accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of a crime and misrepresenting trade in multiple dimensions.

Democratic presidential candidates, meantime, stepped forward for their first debates and tripped at times on issues dear to them: climate change, health care and immigration among them.

A look at the misstatements:

AUTOMAKERS

Trump: “Many, many companies — including South Korea — but many companies are coming into the United States. … Car companies, in particular.  They’re going to Michigan. They’re going to Ohio and North Carolina and Pennsylvania, Florida. … We hadn’t had a plant built in years — in decades, actually. And now we have many plants being built all throughout the United States — cars.” — remarks Sunday to Korean business leaders in Seoul.  

The Facts: Car companies are not pouring into the U.S. as Trump suggests, nor does he deserve all the credit for those that have moved here. He’s also wrong in saying that auto plants haven’t been built in decades. A number of automakers — Toyota, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen among them — opened plants in recent decades, mostly in the South.

Government statistics show that jobs in auto and parts manufacturing grew at a slower rate in the two-plus years since Trump took office than in the two prior years. 

Between January of 2017, when Trump was inaugurated, and May of this year, the latest figures available, U.S. auto and parts makers added 44,000 jobs, or a 4.6 percent increase, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

But in the two years before Trump took office, the industry added 63,600 manufacturing jobs, a 7.1 percent increase. 

The only automaker announcing plans to reopen a plant in Michigan is Fiat Chrysler, which is restarting an old engine plant to build three-row SUVs. It’s been planning to do so since before Trump was elected. GM is even closing two Detroit-area factories: one that builds cars and another that builds transmissions. Toyota is building a new factory in Alabama with Mazda, and Volvo opened a plant in South Carolina last year, but in each case, that was in the works before Trump took office.

Automakers have made announcements about new models being built in Michigan, but no other factories have been reopened. Ford stopped building the Focus compact car in the Detroit suburb of Wayne last year, but it’s being replaced by the manufacture of a small pickup and a new SUV. That announcement was made in December 2016, before Trump took office.

GM, meantime, is closing factories in Ohio and Maryland.

Trump can plausibly claim that his policies have encouraged some activity in the domestic auto industry. Corporate tax cuts freed more money for investment, and potential tariff increases on imported vehicles are an incentive to build in the U.S. But when expansion does happen, it’s not all because of him.

Fiat Chrysler has been planning the SUVs for several years and has been looking at expansion in the Detroit area, where it has unused building space and an abundant, trainable automotive labor force.Normally it takes at least three years for an automaker to plan a new vehicle.

NORTH KOREA

Trump: “President Obama wanted to meet, and Chairman Kim would not meet him. The Obama administration was begging for a meeting. They were begging for meetings constantly. And Chairman Kim would not meet with him.” — joint news conference Sunday with South Korea’s president in Seoul.

The Facts: That’s not the case. 

While Obama came into his presidency saying he’d be willing to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and other U.S. adversaries “without preconditions,” he never publicly sought a meeting with Kim. Obama eventually met Cuba’s President Raul Castro and spoke to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani by phone but took a different stance with Kim in 2009 as North Korea was escalating missile and nuclear tests.

“This is the same kind of pattern that we saw his father engage in, and his grandfather before that,” Obama said in 2013. “Since I came into office, the one thing I was clear about was, we’re not going to reward this kind of provocative behavior. You don’t get to bang your — your spoon on the table and somehow you get your way.”

Ben Rhodes, who was on Obama’s national security team for both terms, tweeted: ?”Obama never sought a meeting with Kim Jong Un.”

Trump has portrayed his diplomacy with Kim as happening due to a special personal chemistry and friendship, saying he’s in “no rush” to get Kim to commit fully to denuclearization.

INCOME INEQUALITY

Trump: “Blue-collar workers are doing fantastic. They’re the biggest beneficiary of the tax cuts, the blue collar.” —  news conference Saturday at G-20 summit in Japan.

The Facts: Wrong.

While most middle-income taxpayers did see a tax cut this year, Trump’s tax cut clearly skewed to the wealthy rather than lower-income groups such as manufacturing workers, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. It found that taxpayers making $308,000 to $733,000 stood to benefit the most.

The Joint Committee on Taxation separately found the tax cuts were particularly helpful to businesses and people making more than $100,000 annually.

 Larry Kudlow, White House economic adviser: “The United States economy is booming. It’s running at roughly 3 percent average since President Trump took office two and a half years ago. On this business about bad distribution, the blue-collar workers, the nonsupervisory workers have done the best. They’re the ones running wages at 3-1/2 percent. Their growth and incomes and wages is exceeding the growth of their supervisors.” — interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

The Facts: There’s some truth to the claim that low-income workers have seen better wage gains than others in the workforce. This trend predates Trump’s presidency and has continued. But the blue-collar workforce has lagged behind lower-wage workers in pay gains.

Some of the gains reflect higher minimum wages passed at the state and local level, not just the rate of economic growth. The Trump administration opposes an increase to the federal minimum wage.

With the unemployment rate at 3.6%, the lowest since December 1969, employers are struggling to fill jobs. They have pushed up pay for the lowest-paid one-quarter of workers more quickly than for everyone else since 2015. In April, the poorest 25% saw their paychecks increase 4.4% from a year earlier, compared with 3.1% for the richest one-quarter.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “Eighty-three percent of your tax benefits go to the top 1%.” — Democratic presidential debate Thursday.

The Facts: That statistic is not close to true now. The Vermont senator is referring to 2027, not the present day. He didn’t include that critical context in his statement.

His figures come from an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. That analysis found that in 2027 the top 1% of earners would get 83% of the savings from the tax overhaul signed into law by Trump. Why is that? Most of the tax cuts for individuals are set to expire after 2025, so their benefits go away while cuts for corporations continue. The 2017 tax overhaul does disproportionately favor the wealthy and corporations, but just 20.5% of the benefits went to the top 1% last year.

Rep. Tim Ryan: “The bottom 60% haven’t seen a raise since 1980. The top 1% control 90% of the wealth.” — Democratic presidential debate Wednesday.

The Facts: Those figures exaggerate the state of income and wealth inequality. While few studies single out the bottom 60%, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the bottom 80% of Americans have seen their incomes rise 32% since 1979. That is certainly lower than the doubling of income enjoyed by the top one-fifth of income earners. And the richest 1% possess 32% of the nation’s wealth, according to data from the Federal Reserve, not 90%.

Beto O’Rourke, former U.S. representative from Texas: “That’s how you explain an economy that is rigged to corporations and the very wealthiest. A $2 trillion tax cut that favored corporations while they were sitting on record piles of cash and the very wealthiest in this country at a time of historic wealth inequality.” — debate Wednesday.

The Facts: The tax cut wasn’t quite that big: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that it will reduce tax revenues by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. And individuals, not corporations, will actually receive the bulk of those cuts — they’re getting $1.1 trillion while businesses get $654 billion, offset by higher tax revenues from changes to international tax law.

The tax cuts did mostly favor richer Americans: The top one-fifth of income earners got 65% of the benefit from the tax cuts in 2018 with just 1% going to the poorest one-fifth, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

KHASHOGGI

Trump, on the murder of Khashoggi: “Nobody, so far, has pointed directly a finger at the future King of Saudi Arabia.” — news conference Saturday at G-20 summit in Japan.

The Facts: In fact, U.S. intelligence agencies and a U.N. investigator have pointed a finger at him.

U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman must have at least been aware of a plot to kill Khashoggi when the journalist went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2 to pick up documents to marry his Turkish fiancee. Last month, an independent U.N. report into the killing of Khashoggi said there was “credible evidence” to warrant further investigation into the possible role of the crown prince, and suggested sanctions on his personal assets.

Khashoggi, who had been living in the U.S., criticized the Saudi royal family in his writings.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Trump, playing down the need to address climate change: “We have the cleanest air we’ve ever had.” — news conference Saturday at G-20 summit in Japan.

The Facts: That’s false, and air quality hasn’t improved under the Trump administration. Dozens of nations have less smoggy air than the U.S.

After decades of improvement, progress in air quality has stalled. Over the last two years the U.S. had more polluted air days than just a few years earlier, federal data show.

There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in America both last year and the year before than there were on average from 2013 through 2016, the four years when the U.S had its fewest number of those days since at least 1980.

The Obama administration set records for the fewest air polluted days.

The non-profit Health Effects Institute’s “State of Global Air 2019” report ranked the United States 37th dirtiest out of 195 countries for ozone, also known as smog, worse than the global average for population-weighted pollution. Countries such as Britain, Japan, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Albania, Cuba, Russia, Vietnam, New Zealand and Canada have less smoggy air. The U.S. ranks 8th cleanest on the more deadly category of fine particles in the air. It’s still behind countries such as Canada and New Zealand but better than the global average.

Joe Biden, on Obama’s record: “He is the first man to bring together the entire world — 196 nations — to commit to deal with climate change.” — debate Thursday.

The Facts: Not really. The former vice president is minimizing a major climate deal from 22 years ago, a decade before Obama became president.

In 1997, nations across the world met in Japan and hammered out the Kyoto Protocol to limit climate change in a treaty that involved more than 190 countries at different points in time. That treaty itself stemmed from the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Biden is referring to an agreement that came out of a 2015 meeting in Paris that was the 21st climate change convention meeting.The Kyoto Protocol only required specific greenhouse gas emission cuts of developed nations, fewer than half the countries in the world. The Paris agreement, where several world leaders pushed hard, including France’s president, has every country agreeing to do something. But each country proposed its own goals.

Jay Inslee, Washington’s governor: “We are the first generation to feel the sting of climate change and we are the last that can do something about it. … It is our last chance in an administration, next one, to do something about it.”— debate Wednesday.

The Facts: Not quite. This answer implies that after 2025 or 2029, when whoever is elected in 2020 leaves office, it will be too late to fight or limit climate change.

That’s a common misconception that stemmed from a U.N. scientific report that came out last fall, which talked about 2030, mostly because that’s a key date in the Paris climate agreement. The report states that with every half a degree Celsius and with every year, global warming and its dangers get worse. However, it does not say at some point it is too late.

“The hotter it gets the worse it gets but there is no cliff edge,” James Skea, co-chairman of the report and professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London, told The Associated Press.

The report co-author, Swiss climate scientist Sonia I. Seneviratne this month tweeted, “Many scientists point — rightfully — to the fact that we cannot state with certainty that climate would suddenly go berserk in 12 years if we weren’t doing any climate mitigation. But who can state with certainty that we would be safe beyond that stage or even before that?”

O’Rourke, referring to the international climate goal: “If all of us does all that we can, then we’re going to be able to keep this planet from warming another 2 degrees Celsius and ensure that we match what this country can do and live up to our promise and our potential.’’ — debate Wednesday.

The Facts: O’Rourke gets the climate goal wrong.

Since 2009, international summits and the Paris climate agreement list the overarching goal as limiting climate change to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial times. That’s somewhere between 1850 and 1880, depending on who is calculating.

There’s a big difference because since pre-industrial times, Earth has already warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). So the world community is talking about 1 degree Celsius from now and O’Rourke is talking about twice that.

MUELLER

Trump, on communications between two FBI employees: “Mueller terminated them illegally. He terminated the emails, he terminated all of the stuff between Strzok and Page, you know they sung like you’ve never seen. Robert Mueller terminated their text messages together. He would — he terminated them. They’re gone. And that’s illegal, he — that’s a crime.’’ — interview Wednesday on Fox Business Network.

The Facts: Not true. Mueller had no role in deleting anti-Trump text messages traded by former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and there’s no basis for saying he was involved in anything illegal. Also, the communications didn’t vanish.

Once Mueller learned of the existence of the texts, which were sent before his appointment as special counsel, he removed Strzok from his team investigating potential ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The FBI, for technical reasons, was initially unable to retrieve months of text messages between the two officials. But the FBI was ultimately able to recover them and there’s never been any allegation that Mueller had anything to do with that process.

RACE

Sen. Kamala Harris: “Vice President Biden, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America, then?”

Bide: “I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education. That’s what I opposed.” — debate Thursday.

The Facts: That’s hairsplitting.

Biden is claiming that he only opposed the U.S. Education Department’s push for busing to integrate schools because he didn’t want federal mandates forced on local school boards. But in the early and mid-1970s, those were the fault lines in almost every U.S. community, from New Orleans to Boston, where there was stiff opposition to busing. If you were a politician opposing federally enforced busing, you were enabling any local school board or city government that was fighting against it.

As a senator in the late 1970s, Biden supported several measures, including one signed by President Jimmy Carter that restricted the federal government’s authority in forced busing.

Biden told NPR in 1975 that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban court-ordered busing “if it can’t be done through a piece of legislation.”

MIGRANT CHILDREN

Biden, on Trump’s treatment of migrant children at the border: “The idea that he’s in court with his Justice Department saying, children in cages do not need a bed, do not need a blanket, do not need a toothbrush — that is outrageous.”

Harris: “I will release children from cages.”

John Hickenloopers, former Colorado governor: “If you would have ever told me any time in my life that this country would sanction federal agents to take children from the arms of their parents, put them in cages, actually put them up for adoption — in Colorado we call that kidnapping — I would have told you it was unbelievable.” — debate Thursday.

The Facts: They are tapping into a misleading and common insinuation by Democrats about Trump placing “children in cages.”

The cages are chain-link fences and the Obama-Biden administration used them, too.

Children and adults are held behind them, inside holding Border Patrol facilities, under the Trump administration as well.

President Barack Obama’s administration detained large numbers of unaccompanied children inside chain link fences in 2014. Images that circulated online of children in cages during the height of Trump’s family separations controversy were actually from 2014 when Obama was in office.

Children are placed in such areas by age and sex for safety reasons and are supposed to be held for no longer than 72 hours by the Border Patrol. But as the number of migrants continues to grow under the Trump administration, the system is clogged at every end, so Health and Human Services, which manages the care of children in custody, can’t come get the children in time. Officials say they are increasingly holding children for 5 days or longer.

HHS facilities are better equipped to manage the care of children. But, facing budget concerns, officials cut activities such as soccer, English classes and legal aid for children in their care.

As for Hickenlooper’s claim about the government forcing those children into unwanted adoption, that is not federal policy.

HEALTH CARE

Sanders: Under “Medicare for All,” “the vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care than they are now.” — debate Thursday.

The Facts: Probably true, but that’s only part of the equation for a family. Sanders’ plan for a government-run health care system to replace private insurance calls for no premiums, and no copays and deductibles. But taxes would have to go up significantly as the government takes on trillions of dollars in health care costs now covered by employers and individuals. Independent studies estimate the government would be spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion over 10 years, although Medicare for All supporters say that’s overstating it.

How those tax increases would be divvied up remains to be seen, as Sanders has not released a blueprint for how to finance his plan.

TRUMP ON ECONOMY

Trump on his tariffs on Chinese goods: “Don’t let anyone tell you that we’re paying. We’re not paying, China’s paying for it.” — Fox Business Network interview.

The Facts: Americans are paying for it.

Trump refuses to recognize a reality that his own chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, has acknowledged. Tariffs are mainly if not entirely paid by companies and consumers in the country that imposes them. China is not sending billions of dollars to the U.S. treasury.

In a study in May , the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, with Princeton and Columbia universities, estimated that tariffs from Trump’s trade dispute with China were costing $831 per U.S. household on an annual basis. And that was based on the situation in 2018, before tariffs escalated. Analysts also found that the burden of Trump’s tariffs falls entirely on U.S. consumers and businesses that buy imported products.

Trump persistently mischaracterizes trade in all its dimensions, giving the wrong numbers for trade deficits, asserting that tariffs did not exist before him, and portraying them inaccurately as a windfall for the government and taxpayers. In that respect, he was correct when he said in the interview, “I view tariffs differently than a lot of other people.”

Trump: “The poverty index is also best number EVER.” — tweet Wednesday.

The Facts: Not true. The current poverty rate of 12.3% is not the lowest ever; it’s fallen below that several times over the last half-century, according to the Census Bureau’s official count.

The poverty rate dropped only modestly under Trump’s watch, to 12.3 percent in 2017 — the latest figure available — from 12.7 percent in 2016. At the same time, nearly 40 million Americans remained poor by the Census Bureau’s count, statistically unchanged from 2016.

The poverty rate previously has stood at 12.3% as recently as 2006, and was 11.3% in 2000.

The U.S. poverty rate hit a record low of 11.1% in 1973.

…

The third meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has drawn praise as well as criticism.  Critics say Trump is showering attention on a dictator without getting any concessions on the North Korean nuclear development, while others see it as a ray of hope for a permanent peace on the Korean peninsula.  VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports.

…

National security hawks who normally side with U.S. President Donald Trump on foreign policy issues are up in arms over his announcement on Saturday that he would indefinitely delay the imposition of tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods and relax restrictions on U.S. firms doing business with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.

In a news conference Saturday that followed a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Trump said: “U.S. companies can sell their equipment to Huawei. We’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it.

‘Entity List’

This represents a sharp reversal by Trump, whose administration on May 16 added the company to the “Entity List” kept by the federal Commerce Department. Inclusion on that list is viewed as a sort of death penalty for foreign firms, because it prevents U.S. companies from doing business with them without express permission from the Commerce Department.

In an announcement at the time, the department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said, “The U.S. Government has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.”

The company has been caught stealing trade secrets, evading U.S. bans on transferring technology to Iran, and is suspected — though never proven — to be an arm of the Chinese intelligence services.

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, an ally of the president, appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and told moderator Chuck Todd, “I’m very concerned about Huawei. I think they are a threat to our national security.”

Asked if he thought Trump had made a mistake, Barrasso said, “I know the president is a dealmaker. He is working on this. I would not allow Huawei, certainly, into our country. He’s making decisions about what our country and companies can sell overseas, to Huawei.

“To me, Huawei in the United States would be like a Trojan horse ready to steal more information from us,” he added.

There is an important distinction to be made in the discussions surrounding U.S. policy toward Huawei that often gets lost.

‘Back door’ access

A major concern that many in the national security field have is that if Huawei equipment is used to build new 5G mobile data delivery systems, the Chinese government might be able to pressure the company to give Beijing’s intelligence services “back door” access to secure U.S. systems. A law on the books in China requires private companies to assist the intelligence services on demand.

However, in moves that predate the Trump administration — and which were recently strengthened — the federal government had already taken steps to prevent telecommunications firms in the U.S. from deploying equipment made by Huawei. In fact, the government’s focus on information security with regard to Huawei has been more focused on trying to persuade strategic partners and allies that the U.S. shares intelligence with to blacklist the company in their own countries.

The changes Trump announced over the weekend are different: He suggested easing recently imposed restrictions on U.S. companies selling their goods to Huawei — particularly intermediate goods like computer processors, circuit boards and the like, that the Chinese company needs to build its phones and networking equipment.

Huawei’s inclusion on the Entity List barred it from purchasing key parts for its equipment and from licensing vital software, like Google’s Android operating system, which runs on all of the millions of smartphones that Huawei sells each year.

New policy yet unclear

As of Sunday afternoon, it remained unclear exactly what sort of things U.S. firms would be able to sell to Huawei under the administration’s new policy, and how the Commerce Department would make its determinations.

The president’s decision to couple his trade war with Beijing with the Huawei ban is infuriating to many in the national security community, because it drags what they see as a pure national defense issue into the far more transactional world of trade negotiations.

“If President Trump has agreed to reverse recent sanctions against Huawei, he has made a catastrophic mistake,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wrote on Twitter Saturday. “It will destroy the credibility of his administration’s warnings about the threat posed by the company. No one will ever again take them seriously.”

Rubio went on to pledge that if Trump does reverse himself on Huawei, lawmakers would pass a new ban themselves, and predicted that both the House and Senate would do so with majorities large enough to override a presidential veto.

On Sunday, the administration rushed White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow onto the political talk shows to assure the president’s critics that any relaxation of the administration’s stance toward Huawei would have no national security implications.

“Regarding the Huawei story, let me just try to clarify that, there will be sales from American companies, but only in the sense of the general merchandise, things that are available in other places around the world,” Kudlow told Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Anything to do with national security concerns will not receive a new license from the Commerce Department.”

The administration’s assurances only went so far in comforting lawmakers concerned about the president’s about-face with regard to Huawei.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a reliable supporter of the president in most cases, said he was withholding judgment on the question of whether the change is a good move.

“I don’t know what he agreed to regarding exceptions to the ban,” he said on “Face the Nation.” “If they’re minor exceptions, that’s OK, but if we’re selling Huawei major technology, that would be a mistake. So I don’t know.”

“It’s clearly a concession,” Graham said. “There’s some type of equipment we could sell to Huawei and other Chinese companies that would not hurt our national security.

“But there’s a reason that Huawei has been on the banned list. It is a Chinese company owned by the Chinese government deeply controlled by the military that could be used to hijack technology, data and steal trade secrets and other things. So, I don’t know the nature of the exception,” he said.

“There will be a lot of pushback if this is a major concession. If it’s a minor concession, I think it’s part of the overall deal,” Graham added.

…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday appealed a U.S. judge’s ruling that blocked his administration from using $2.5 billion in funds intended for anti-drug activities to construct a wall along the southern border with Mexico. 

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers said in a court filing that they were formally appealing Friday’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

“We’re immediately appealing it, and we think we’ll win the appeal,” Trump said during a press conference Saturday at a summit of leaders of the Group of 20 major economies in Japan. 

“There was no reason that that should’ve happened,” Trump said. 

Trump says construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is needed to keep out illegal immigrants and drugs, but he has so far been unable to get congressional approval for such a project. 

Judge Blocks Plans to Build Part of Southern Border Wall

A federal judge blocked on Friday President Donald Trump from building sections of his long-sought border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr., immediately halted the administration’s efforts to redirect military-designated funds for wall construction. His order applies to two high-priority projects to replace 51 miles (82 kilometers) of fence in two areas on the Mexican border.

Gilliam issued the ruling after hearing arguments last week in two cases.

In February, the Trump administration declared a national emergency to reprogram $6.7 billion in funds that Congress had allocated for other purposes to build the wall, which groups and states including California had challenged. 

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland, Calif., said in a pair of court decisions that the Trump administration’s proposal to transfer Defense Department funds intended for anti-drug activities was unlawful. 

One of Gilliam’s rulings was in a lawsuit filed by California on behalf of 20 states, while the other was in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union in coordination with the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition. 

“These rulings critically stop President Trump’s illegal money grab to divert $2.5 billion of unauthorized funding for his pet project,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement late Friday. “All President Trump has succeeded in building is a constitutional crisis, threatening immediate harm to our state.” 

…

For months, the names of white men have sat at the top of early Democratic presidential primary polls. On the debate stage this week, the half-dozen women in the field offered up an alternative: themselves.

They did so with different tactics and styles but a shared goal: shaking up assumptions about who is electable in a race for a job that has only been held by men.

While it’s too early in the Democratic nominating process to know if they succeeded on that front, some of the women emerged as dominant forces on the debate stage, driving the policy discussions and insisting on being heard on issues despite the crowded field. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Sen. Kamala Harris led the way and were widely seen as among the top performers.

“Over the past two nights, women won each debate and showed that this race is not over,” said Stephanie Schriock, president of Emily’s List, the largest national organization devoted to electing women. “They were great debaters, compelling storytellers and effective at making their case and getting in the fight when they had a point to make.”

Of course, winning one debate is far different than winning the nomination or the general election. Hillary Clinton, for example, dominated most of her debate showdowns throughout the 2016 campaign, including her three faceoffs with Donald Trump, but still lost the election.

Warren Criticizes Trump’s ‘Dart Throwing’ Mexico Tariff Decision

Democratic presidential hopeful says president’s decision to impose tariffs on Mexico lacks a coherent strategy

For some Democrats, Clinton’s loss was a searing experience that has prompted questions about whether the country is ready to elect a female president — or whether the party should even risk testing that proposition in next year’s high-stakes election.

In her two White House campaigns, Clinton was always the only woman on the debate stage. This time around, the female candidates had company — a history-making three women on stage each night. On Wednesday, Warren was joined by Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. On Thursday, Harris debated alongside Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and the author Marianne Williamson. The debate’s moderators also included two women, NBC News’ Rachel Maddow and Savannah Guthrie.

Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said she is among those who have heard voters raise doubts about whether Democrats should nominate a woman in 2020 following Clinton’s loss. Following the debates, she said she was hopeful that narrative might change.

“This question of electability maybe gets shaken up a little bit as a result of these past two nights,” Walsh said.

There were notable moments for many of the women on stage. Gillibrand focused her message on women’s rights and family issues, doubling down on her strategy of running as an unabashed feminist. Klobuchar’s standout moment came when a male rival portrayed himself as the field’s most ardent defender of abortion rights.

“I want to say there are three women up here who fought pretty hard for a woman’s right to choose,” Klobuchar said as the audience erupted in applause.

Yet it was Warren and Harris who rose to the top of the pack.

Warren stood at center stage on Wednesday, reflecting her standing as the night’s highest polling candidate. Her liberal policy positions also took center stage, driving much of the discussion throughout the night. Warren consciously avoided squabbling with her rivals, seeking to project the strength of a leading candidate.

Harris burst through on night two with a striking exchange with former Vice President Joe Biden, who has led early polling throughout the year. She challenged Biden vigorously, and in personal terms, over his past positions on school busing and his comments citing his work with segregationist senators as an example of a bygone air of civility.

The exchange was not the result of a moderator’s question. It was a moment Harris seized on herself, breaking in after author Williamson described how the average American was “woefully undereducated” about the history of race in the United States.

“As the only black person on this stage, I’d like to speak on the issue of race,” Harris said. The crowd fell silent as she then recounted being bused to a desegregated school as a child.

“By weaving her personal experience into the broader attack, she could go after Biden without coming off as petty or inappropriate,” said Amanda Litman, a co-founder of Run For Something who worked on Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “She claimed her space and made incredible use of it.”

The strong overall female presence in these debates may have a resonance well beyond what was visible onstage, said Erin Cassese, a specialist in women and politics at the University of Delaware.

Research shows, Cassese said, that “when women run, there’s a role model effect, other women pay attention, they’re more engaged in the campaign, and they may develop political ambitions.”

She added: “It’s less obvious because it’s not what we’re seeing onstage, but it’s about how people are connecting to the optics of it.”

…

Political unease over the White House’s tough talk against Iran is reviving questions about President Donald Trump’s ability to order military strikes without approval from Congress.

The Senate fell short Friday, in a 50-40 vote, on an amendment to a sweeping Defense bill that would require congressional support before Trump acts. It didn’t reach the 60-vote threshold needed for passage. But lawmakers said the majority showing sent a strong message that Trump cannot continue relying on the nearly 2-decade-old war authorizations Congress approved in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The House is expected to take up the issue next month.

“A congressional vote is a pretty good signal of what our constituents are telling us — that another war in the Middle East would be a disaster right now, we don’t want the president to just do it on a whim,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a co-author of the measure with Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. “My gut tells me that the White House is realizing this is deeply unpopular with the American public.”

The effort in the Senate signals discomfort with Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Four Republicans joined most Democrats in supporting the amendment, but it faces steep resistance from the White House and the Pentagon wrote a letter opposing it.

McConnell: ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it nothing more than another example of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which he explained as whatever the president’s for “they seem to be against.”

McConnell said putting restrictions on the White House would “hamstring” the president’s ability to respond militarily at a time of escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran.

“They have gratuitously chosen to make him the enemy,” McConnell said. “Rather than work with the president to deter our actual enemy, they have chosen to make him the enemy.”

Trump: No congressional approval needed

Trump’s approach to the standoff with Iran and his assertion earlier this week that he doesn’t need congressional approval to engage militarily has only sparked fresh questions and hardened views in Congress.

Trump tweeted last week that the U.S. came within minutes of striking Iran in response to its shooting down of an unmanned U.S. drone until he told the military to stand down. He said he was concerned over an Iranian casualty count estimated at 150.

“We’ve been keeping Congress abreast of what we’re doing … and I think it’s something they appreciate,” Trump told The Hill website. “I do like keeping them abreast, but I don’t have to do it legally.”

As the popular Defense bill was making its way through the Senate, Democrats vowed to hold back their support unless McConnell agreed to debate the war powers. The defense bill was roundly approved Thursday on a vote of 86-8.

Schumer urges Congress to act

Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York assembled his caucus earlier this week. In a series of closed-door meetings he argued that Congress had ceded too much authority to presidents of both parties, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the private sessions. Schumer said the amendment would prohibit funds to be used for hostilities with Iran without the OK of Congress.

Schumer also said that the American people are worried that U.S. and Iran are on a dangerous collision course and that even though Trump campaigned on not wanting to get the U.S. embroiled in wars he “may bumble us into one.”

“It is high time that Congress re-establishes itself as this nation’s decider of war and peace,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Romney counters

To counter the Democrats’ effort, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah pushed forward an alternative to Udall’s amendment that reaffirmed the U.S. can defend itself and respond to any attacks. But Romney said his version is not an authorization to use force against Iran.

“I fully concur with my Senate colleagues who desire to reassert our constitutional role,” Romney said on the Senate floor. But he warned that the Udall amendment goes too far. “The president should not have his hands tied.”

The debate over whether the legislative or executive branch has sole power over war-making depends on how one interprets the Constitution, experts said.

In recent years, the U.S. military has been deployed under old war authorizations passed in 2001 and 2002 for conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some lawmakers have pushed to pass new war powers acts, but none have materialized, though the House last week voted to sunset those authorizations.

Pompeo lists Iran’s aggressions

In ticking off a list of Iranian acts of “unprovoked aggression,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently asserted that a late May car bombing of a U.S. convoy in Kabul, Afghanistan, was among a series of threats or attacks by Iran and its proxies against American and allies interests. At the time, the Taliban claimed credit for the attack, with no public word of Iranian involvement.

Pompeo’s inclusion of the Afghanistan attack in his list of six Iranian incidents raised eyebrows in Congress. Pompeo and other administration officials have suggested that they would be legally justified in taking military action against Iran under the 2001 authorization.

That law gave President George W. Bush authority to retaliate against al-Qaida and the Taliban for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It has subsequently been used to allow military force against extremists elsewhere, from the Philippines to Syria.

The Senate amendment addressed the question about how much Congress can restrict the president, said Scott R. Anderson, a legal expert at Brookings Institution.

“If they actually pass it, it would be very substantive because it would be putting limits on the president that have never been there before,” Anderson said.

Even though the measure failed to reach the 60 votes needed, the House will likely try to attach its own limits on military action in Iran with its Defense bill next month. 
 

…

Political unease over the White House’s tough talk against Iran is reviving questions about President Donald Trump’s ability to order military strikes without approval from Congress.

The Senate fell short Friday, in a 50-40 vote, on an amendment to a sweeping Defense bill that would require congressional support before Trump acts. It didn’t reach the 60-vote threshold needed for passage. But lawmakers said the majority showing sent a strong message that Trump cannot continue relying on the nearly 2-decade-old war authorizations Congress approved in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The House is expected to take up the issue next month.

“A congressional vote is a pretty good signal of what our constituents are telling us — that another war in the Middle East would be a disaster right now, we don’t want the president to just do it on a whim,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a co-author of the measure with Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M. “My gut tells me that the White House is realizing this is deeply unpopular with the American public.”

The effort in the Senate signals discomfort with Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Four Republicans joined most Democrats in supporting the amendment, but it faces steep resistance from the White House and the Pentagon wrote a letter opposing it.

McConnell: ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called it nothing more than another example of “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which he explained as whatever the president’s for “they seem to be against.”

McConnell said putting restrictions on the White House would “hamstring” the president’s ability to respond militarily at a time of escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran.

“They have gratuitously chosen to make him the enemy,” McConnell said. “Rather than work with the president to deter our actual enemy, they have chosen to make him the enemy.”

Trump: No congressional approval needed

Trump’s approach to the standoff with Iran and his assertion earlier this week that he doesn’t need congressional approval to engage militarily has only sparked fresh questions and hardened views in Congress.

Trump tweeted last week that the U.S. came within minutes of striking Iran in response to its shooting down of an unmanned U.S. drone until he told the military to stand down. He said he was concerned over an Iranian casualty count estimated at 150.

“We’ve been keeping Congress abreast of what we’re doing … and I think it’s something they appreciate,” Trump told The Hill website. “I do like keeping them abreast, but I don’t have to do it legally.”

As the popular Defense bill was making its way through the Senate, Democrats vowed to hold back their support unless McConnell agreed to debate the war powers. The defense bill was roundly approved Thursday on a vote of 86-8.

Schumer urges Congress to act

Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York assembled his caucus earlier this week. In a series of closed-door meetings he argued that Congress had ceded too much authority to presidents of both parties, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the private sessions. Schumer said the amendment would prohibit funds to be used for hostilities with Iran without the OK of Congress.

Schumer also said that the American people are worried that U.S. and Iran are on a dangerous collision course and that even though Trump campaigned on not wanting to get the U.S. embroiled in wars he “may bumble us into one.”

“It is high time that Congress re-establishes itself as this nation’s decider of war and peace,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Romney counters

To counter the Democrats’ effort, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah pushed forward an alternative to Udall’s amendment that reaffirmed the U.S. can defend itself and respond to any attacks. But Romney said his version is not an authorization to use force against Iran.

“I fully concur with my Senate colleagues who desire to reassert our constitutional role,” Romney said on the Senate floor. But he warned that the Udall amendment goes too far. “The president should not have his hands tied.”

The debate over whether the legislative or executive branch has sole power over war-making depends on how one interprets the Constitution, experts said.

In recent years, the U.S. military has been deployed under old war authorizations passed in 2001 and 2002 for conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some lawmakers have pushed to pass new war powers acts, but none have materialized, though the House last week voted to sunset those authorizations.

Pompeo lists Iran’s aggressions

In ticking off a list of Iranian acts of “unprovoked aggression,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently asserted that a late May car bombing of a U.S. convoy in Kabul, Afghanistan, was among a series of threats or attacks by Iran and its proxies against American and allies interests. At the time, the Taliban claimed credit for the attack, with no public word of Iranian involvement.

Pompeo’s inclusion of the Afghanistan attack in his list of six Iranian incidents raised eyebrows in Congress. Pompeo and other administration officials have suggested that they would be legally justified in taking military action against Iran under the 2001 authorization.

That law gave President George W. Bush authority to retaliate against al-Qaida and the Taliban for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It has subsequently been used to allow military force against extremists elsewhere, from the Philippines to Syria.

The Senate amendment addressed the question about how much Congress can restrict the president, said Scott R. Anderson, a legal expert at Brookings Institution.

“If they actually pass it, it would be very substantive because it would be putting limits on the president that have never been there before,” Anderson said.

Even though the measure failed to reach the 60 votes needed, the House will likely try to attach its own limits on military action in Iran with its Defense bill next month. 
 

…

The campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination kicked off this week in Miami with two nights of debates in a city known for its diversity and its close connection with immigrants from Haiti, Cuba and around the world. Democrats hope this early outreach will resonate with one of their strongest bases of voters: women of color. But as VOA’s Congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from Miami, these voters are speaking up and demanding more from candidates.

…

The campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination kicked off this week in Miami with two nights of debates in a city known for its diversity and its close connection with immigrants from Haiti, Cuba and around the world. Democrats hope this early outreach will resonate with one of their strongest bases of voters: women of color. But as VOA’s Congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from Miami, these voters are speaking up and demanding more from candidates.

…

Former President Jimmy Carter says he believes President Donald Trump actually lost the 2016 election and is only president because of Russian interference.

Carter made the comments Friday, without offering evidence, during a discussion on human rights at a resort in Leesburg, Virginia.

The Democrat said he believed Trump lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interfered,'' while noting that the scope of the interference wasnot yet quantified.”

The U.S. intelligence community asserted in a 2017 report that Russia had worked to help Trump during the election and to undermine Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
 
But the intelligence agencies did not assess whether that interference affected the election or contributed to Trump’s victory, and no evidence has emerged that votes were changed on Election Day.

…

Former President Jimmy Carter says he believes President Donald Trump actually lost the 2016 election and is only president because of Russian interference.

Carter made the comments Friday, without offering evidence, during a discussion on human rights at a resort in Leesburg, Virginia.

The Democrat said he believed Trump lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interfered,'' while noting that the scope of the interference wasnot yet quantified.”

The U.S. intelligence community asserted in a 2017 report that Russia had worked to help Trump during the election and to undermine Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
 
But the intelligence agencies did not assess whether that interference affected the election or contributed to Trump’s victory, and no evidence has emerged that votes were changed on Election Day.

…

Hardly anyone in Congress opposes improving the horrific conditions awaiting many migrants caught spilling across the southwest border. Yet for Democrats, distrust of President Donald Trump runs so deep that a uniformly popular humanitarian aid bill prompted the party’s deepest and most bitter divisions since they took House control in January.

The bill dealt a blow to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who had to accept weaker legislation than she preferred. But it also produced schisms that radiated far broader shock waves.

It pitted House and Senate Democrats against each other and highlighted discord between the House’s sizable progressive and centrist factions. It showed that Pelosi faces a challenging balancing act that goes well beyond coping with a handful of vocal, liberal freshmen like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

The fight suggests that similar power plays between the liberal and moderate blocs could complicate Democrats’ efforts to move future bills on marquee issues like health care, climate change and divvying up federal dollars among defense and domestic programs. And it echoed problems faced by recent Republican speakers when they controlled the House and saw priorities derailed by members of the GOP’s hard-right, often unyielding House Freedom Caucus.

”It is not good for our unity,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a liberal leader, adding, “This is a very rough patch.”

While both chambers of Congress approved the package by lopsided margins, Senate Democrats led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer backed it overwhelmingly, with just six Democrats voting “no.” They congratulated themselves for cutting the best deal they could in the Republican-controlled chamber, where the rules virtually force the two parties to compromise if legislation is to pass.

”You’ve got a 30-1 vote,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Senate Democrats’ chief negotiator on the measure, citing the Appropriations Committee’s overwhelming approval, which presaged the Senate’s 84-8 final passage. “Around here these days you couldn’t get 30-1 that the sun rises in the East.”

Yet in the House’s 305-102 vote sending the measure to Trump on Thursday, Pelosi’s Democrats split 129-95 for the measure. Many who backed it did so grudgingly, even though much of the $4.6 billion was aimed at children who have been stockaded in overcrowded, squalid facilities. House Democrats accused their Senate counterparts of killing their leverage to strengthen the measure by backing the legislation so strongly, and even the usually measured Pelosi couldn’t resist a dig.

”We will not engage in the same disrespectful behavior that the Senate did in ignoring the House priorities,” she said. “In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly put the Senate bill on the floor.”

House Democrats were riven internally, with moderates saying liberals were living in a dream world if they thought they could force Republicans to alter the bill.

”The bill was very good. You know why? Because it’s actually going to happen” and get signed into law, said moderate Rep. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J.

Countered Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a top liberal, “Our efforts to try to make this bill much more humane than it is now were basically thrown under the bus” by moderate Democrats.

Progressives wanted to buttress the measure with provisions preventing Trump from transferring money to toughening border security or buying more beds so authorities could detain more migrants. They also sought language strengthening requirements for how migrants are cared for and making it easier for members of Congress to make snap visits to holding facilities.

But swing district moderates, worried they’d be accused of weakening immigration law enforcement and needlessly delaying the aid, warned early Thursday that they would oppose adding such provisions to the bill.

It was already clear that any House changes would die in the Senate. Citing the overpowering support his chamber’s measure had received from both parties, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called it “the only game in town.” Holding almost no cards, Pelosi — who backed the changes that liberals wanted — abruptly brought the Senate-approved bill to the House floor, without the revisions, infuriating progressives.

”They should have been arguing for provisions that actually would hold a cruel administration accountable, and they didn’t,” said Jayapal, expressing her rage at Senate Democrats.

Spotlighting Democrats’ internal turmoil, 24 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus voted against the measure and only eight supported it. The group, for whom immigration and improving the treatment of migrants are top priorities, called the bill “a betrayal of our American values” in a statement.

”We have a president who is very untrustworthy, and giving him a blank check is very frightening for me,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, who opposed the measure. In an indication that the fight could have personal repercussions among Democrats, Escobar said of moderates, “I wish even one of them had spoken to me.”

Democrats might have shaped the bill more to their liking if they’d attached it to a disaster aid bill approved several weeks ago that Trump and congressional Republicans badly wanted to pass. House Democrats pulled it off that measure after liberals complained that it lacked money for Puerto Rico and stricter care standards for migrants, a move that may have robbed them of bargaining power.

”Very few people here have actually had to govern, and they don’t know what that looks like yet,” said veteran Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., noting that only a fraction of House Democrats served in the majority until this year.

…

Hardly anyone in Congress opposes improving the horrific conditions awaiting many migrants caught spilling across the southwest border. Yet for Democrats, distrust of President Donald Trump runs so deep that a uniformly popular humanitarian aid bill prompted the party’s deepest and most bitter divisions since they took House control in January.

The bill dealt a blow to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who had to accept weaker legislation than she preferred. But it also produced schisms that radiated far broader shock waves.

It pitted House and Senate Democrats against each other and highlighted discord between the House’s sizable progressive and centrist factions. It showed that Pelosi faces a challenging balancing act that goes well beyond coping with a handful of vocal, liberal freshmen like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

The fight suggests that similar power plays between the liberal and moderate blocs could complicate Democrats’ efforts to move future bills on marquee issues like health care, climate change and divvying up federal dollars among defense and domestic programs. And it echoed problems faced by recent Republican speakers when they controlled the House and saw priorities derailed by members of the GOP’s hard-right, often unyielding House Freedom Caucus.

”It is not good for our unity,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a liberal leader, adding, “This is a very rough patch.”

While both chambers of Congress approved the package by lopsided margins, Senate Democrats led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer backed it overwhelmingly, with just six Democrats voting “no.” They congratulated themselves for cutting the best deal they could in the Republican-controlled chamber, where the rules virtually force the two parties to compromise if legislation is to pass.

”You’ve got a 30-1 vote,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Senate Democrats’ chief negotiator on the measure, citing the Appropriations Committee’s overwhelming approval, which presaged the Senate’s 84-8 final passage. “Around here these days you couldn’t get 30-1 that the sun rises in the East.”

Yet in the House’s 305-102 vote sending the measure to Trump on Thursday, Pelosi’s Democrats split 129-95 for the measure. Many who backed it did so grudgingly, even though much of the $4.6 billion was aimed at children who have been stockaded in overcrowded, squalid facilities. House Democrats accused their Senate counterparts of killing their leverage to strengthen the measure by backing the legislation so strongly, and even the usually measured Pelosi couldn’t resist a dig.

”We will not engage in the same disrespectful behavior that the Senate did in ignoring the House priorities,” she said. “In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly put the Senate bill on the floor.”

House Democrats were riven internally, with moderates saying liberals were living in a dream world if they thought they could force Republicans to alter the bill.

”The bill was very good. You know why? Because it’s actually going to happen” and get signed into law, said moderate Rep. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J.

Countered Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a top liberal, “Our efforts to try to make this bill much more humane than it is now were basically thrown under the bus” by moderate Democrats.

Progressives wanted to buttress the measure with provisions preventing Trump from transferring money to toughening border security or buying more beds so authorities could detain more migrants. They also sought language strengthening requirements for how migrants are cared for and making it easier for members of Congress to make snap visits to holding facilities.

But swing district moderates, worried they’d be accused of weakening immigration law enforcement and needlessly delaying the aid, warned early Thursday that they would oppose adding such provisions to the bill.

It was already clear that any House changes would die in the Senate. Citing the overpowering support his chamber’s measure had received from both parties, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called it “the only game in town.” Holding almost no cards, Pelosi — who backed the changes that liberals wanted — abruptly brought the Senate-approved bill to the House floor, without the revisions, infuriating progressives.

”They should have been arguing for provisions that actually would hold a cruel administration accountable, and they didn’t,” said Jayapal, expressing her rage at Senate Democrats.

Spotlighting Democrats’ internal turmoil, 24 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus voted against the measure and only eight supported it. The group, for whom immigration and improving the treatment of migrants are top priorities, called the bill “a betrayal of our American values” in a statement.

”We have a president who is very untrustworthy, and giving him a blank check is very frightening for me,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, who opposed the measure. In an indication that the fight could have personal repercussions among Democrats, Escobar said of moderates, “I wish even one of them had spoken to me.”

Democrats might have shaped the bill more to their liking if they’d attached it to a disaster aid bill approved several weeks ago that Trump and congressional Republicans badly wanted to pass. House Democrats pulled it off that measure after liberals complained that it lacked money for Puerto Rico and stricter care standards for migrants, a move that may have robbed them of bargaining power.

”Very few people here have actually had to govern, and they don’t know what that looks like yet,” said veteran Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., noting that only a fraction of House Democrats served in the majority until this year.

…

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson cited an awkward encounter with President Donald Trump’s son-in-law in a restaurant as an example of diplomacy being conducted behind his back when he was in the administration, according to a newly released transcript of a congressional hearing.

Tillerson, who was fired by Trump in March 2018 , mentioned the story during a day of closed-door testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about his rocky, 13-month tenure as secretary of state. He described his surprise to find that he happened to be dining in the same Washington restaurant while Jared Kushner and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Videgaray had a private meal.

The former top U.S. diplomat and CEO of ExxonMobil said he “could see the color go out” of the Mexican official’s face when Tillerson greeted them at their table with a smile.

“And I said: ‘I don’t want to interrupt what y’all are doing,‘” Tillerson recalled for the committee. “I said ’Give me a call next time you’re coming to town. And I left it at that.”

The account from the transcript released Thursday suggests that Trump’s top diplomat was in the dark as the new administration was grappling with major foreign policy issues.

Trump had harsh words for his former top diplomat in December after Tillerson said in rare public remarks that the president was “undisciplined” and did not like to read briefing reports. Trump called him “dumb as a rock” in a tweet.

Tillerson described the restaurant incident as an example of one of the challenges he faced as secretary of state until Trump abruptly fired him over social media.

He said it was a “unique situation” to have the president’s son-in-law as a White House adviser, saying “there was not a real clear understanding” of Kushner’s role and responsibilities.

“No one really described what he was going to be doing,” he said. “I just knew what his title was.”

Tillerson said there other examples. He noted that Kushner “met often” with Mohammad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and that the president’s son-in-law requested that the secretary speak with an official from the kingdom to discuss a document they had been developing that was “kind of a roadmap” for the future of the relationship between the two countries.

The foreign trips raised concerns, the former secretary said, because Kushner would not coordinate with the State Department or the local embassy in the countries he visited. Tillerson said he raised the issue with him but “not much changed.”

A committee member asked about a private dinner in May 2017 attended by Kushner, Steve Bannon, bin Salman and Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of the United Arab Emirates in which they discussed the plans by Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. to blockade the neighboring Gulf nation of Qatar, which hosts the headquarters of U.S. Central Command, in the coming weeks.

Tillerson said he didn’t know about any such dinner but that it would have made him “angry” if it had occurred, since he and others in the administration were caught off guard by the blockade a few weeks later. The committee did not cite a source for their information about the dinner. The White House said it did not occur and disputed the former secretary’s broader criticism of Kushner.

“This story is false and a cheap attempt to rewrite history. The alleged ‘dinner’ to supposedly discuss the blockade never happened, and neither Jared, nor anyone in the White House, was involved in the blockade,” presidential spokesman Hogan Gidley said. “The White House operated under the belief the Secretary of State at the time, Mr. Tillerson, would and should know what his own team was working on.”

Gidley added that Kushner “consistently follows proper protocols” with the National Security Council and the State Department, “and this instance is no different.”

Bannon did not respond to a request for comment.

The testimony, with Tillerson accompanied by a personal lawyer and a State Department attorney, took place in private last month. A transcript was released Thursday. There were large sections redacted, including some where he discusses issues related to an Oval Office meeting that involved the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergei Kislyak .

He was prohibited from discussing private conversations with Trump and avoided certain highly publicized incidents, including reports he once referred to the president as a “moron.”

He told the committee he had never met Trump before being urged by him to take the job and he was stunned by the offer after his long career as an oil industry executive with extensive overseas experience, especially in Russia and the Middle East.

Tillerson, who had been acquainted with Russian President Vladimir Putin since the late 1990s, said he told the leader during his first visit as secretary of state that relations with the United States were bad but could be improved if they worked to build trust.

“I said the relationship is the worst it’s been since the Cold War but I looked him in the eye and I said but it can get worse and we can’t let that happen,” he said.

…