Eileen Sullivan

“We need intelligent background checks,” Trump said in brief remarks to reporters as he left the White House for a political fundraiser in Southampton, New York, followed by a vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. “This isn’t a question of NRA, Republican or Democrat.”

He said there was “tremendous” support for “really common-sense, sensible, important background checks.” He added that he was confident that the gun lobby, which in the past has been effective in resisting such measures, would ultimately agree or “be more neutral.” And he asserted that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, was “on board.”

But while Trump suggested there was a greater will now for new gun measures than after previous mass shootings, there were no new major signals Friday from the National Rifle Association, the White House or Capitol Hill that action on the politically fraught issue of gun rights was closer to compromise or resolution.

The NRA’s position on new gun safety measures had not changed. The association’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, said Thursday that additional background check measures being discussed in Washington “would not have prevented the horrific tragedies in El Paso and Dayton.”

The organization has succeeded in the past in convincing Trump to abandon gun control efforts. Trump on Friday said he had a “great relationship” with the NRA and reaffirmed his support for the Second Amendment.

Trump has not defined what “meaningful” background checks would entail. On Friday, he suggested that a person’s juvenile record, which is typically expunged when he or she turns 18, should be visible to those reviewing a prospective gun buyer’s background.

“I think a lot of really meaningful things on background checks will take place,” Trump said.

On Thursday, McConnell signaled that he would at least be open to considering new legislation on guns, although he did not call the Senate back from its August recess to address the issue immediately. In the past, both Trump and McConnell have opposed measures to expand background checks, including a bill the House passed earlier this year.

McConnell on Thursday said measures the Senate would consider would include so-called red flag laws, which are designed to make it easier for authorities to take firearms from people considered potentially dangerous. Those laws depend on someone — such as a friend or family member — contacting authorities with concerns about someone before they act.

Some 17 states have versions of a red flag law; Texas and Ohio are not among them. Democrats have said that a red flag law alone would not be enough, and new legislation would have to include requiring background checks for all prospective gun purchasers.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/gun-background-checks.html" id="c494f152-580c-3d87-a06b-d74394d6e57f">The New York Times</a>.

Trump Wants 'Intelligent Background Checks' and Says McConnell Is 'On Board'

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday called on lawmakers to pass “meaningful” background checks on gun purchasers, less than a week after mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, left 31 people dead.

“We don’t want guns in the hands of the wrong people,” Trump said in brief remarks to reporters, less than a week after mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, left 31 people dead.

The president spoke as he was departing the White House for a political fundraiser in Southampton, New York, followed by a vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Trump said there was “tremendous” support for “really common-sense sensible, important background checks.” He added that he was confident that the gun lobby, which in the past has been effective in resisting such measures, would ultimately agree or “be more neutral.”

On Thursday, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, signaled he would at least be open to considering such legislation, although he did not call the Senate back from its August recess to address the issue.

There were no new major signals Friday from the National Rifle Association, the White House or Capitol Hill that action on the politically fraught issue of gun rights was closer to compromise or resolution.

In the past, both Trump and McConnell have opposed legislation to expand background checks.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/us/politics/gun-background-checks-trump.html" id="1fea8f6d-2f9a-3959-a04a-5c31eaca8291">The New York Times</a>.

'We Don't Want Guns in the Hands of the Wrong People,' Trump Says

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday said he was committed to passing new laws for background checks on gun purchases and said the time was now for lawmakers to come together and do something.

Yet even as he tried to explain in a pair of Twitter posts that showing “losses for tax purposes” was considered a “sport” among real estate developers like himself, the president also said The Times’ account was “a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!”

It was not immediately clear what specifically in The Times investigation Trump disputed.

The article reported the staggering figure of $1.17 billion in losses between 1985 and 1994, an amount calculated from 10 years of his tax information obtained by The Times. It also raised questions about the image that Trump presented of himself, and whether he is a tarnished, not triumphant, businessman. In some years, Trump appears to have lost more money than any other single taxpayer among an IRS sampling of high earners. Trump has portrayed himself as a self-made billionaire and master deal maker.

The new details about the president’s steep financial losses provide the fullest picture yet of his taxes. And his defense of the losses that he reported in the 1980s and 1990s will fuel House Democrats in their fight to get his tax returns for the past six years.

Trump has refused to release his tax returns, bucking a common practice of presidential candidates for the past four decades. Earlier this week, the Treasury Department announced it would not release the tax returns despite a formal request from House Democrats, kicking off a legal battle that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., said the revelations about Trump’s losses were shocking.

"Trump was perhaps the worst businessman in the world,” said Pascrell, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has broad authority to ask for the tax returns of any taxpayer. “His entire campaign was a lie. He didn’t pay taxes for years and lost over $1 billion — how is that possible? How did he keep getting more money and where on earth was it all going? We need to know now.”

Pascrell insisted that the IRS comply with his committee’s request. “We now have another part of the truth,” he said. “We need a lot more.”

During a weekly meeting with reporters Wednesday, the House majority leader, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said the new details bolstered Democrats’ demand for Trump’s tax returns. He dismissed Trump’s longtime excuse that he was unable to release them because they were under audit.

“Presumably any time they get a piece of paper from Donald Trump, they put it under audit,” he said.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/us/politics/trump-tax-investigation.html" id="b0cf8280-cfe5-3f88-a1ac-64412e07e73c">The New York Times</a>.

Trump Defends $1.17 Billion in Losses as Just for 'Tax Purposes'

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday defended the more than $1 billion he reported in business losses between 1985 and 1994, a previously undisclosed amount revealed in a New York Times investigation, as a best practice that other real estate developers had also used.

“We are looking at the possibility, strongly looking at it to be honest with you,” he said Friday in response to a question about the proposal.

“We might as well do what they always say they want,” Trump said if Democrats do not agree to new immigration policies. “We’ll bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it,” he said, adding that California welcomed the idea of more people coming to the state.

“We can give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply,” he said.

Trump’s comments came a day after his administration said the policy proposal was never seriously considered. But after the president’s Twitter posts Friday, a White House spokesman said Democrats should work with the administration to welcome migrants into their districts.

“Democrats say we must have open borders and that illegal immigrants have a right to be in this country at all costs,” the spokesman, Hogan Gidley, said, adding, “so they should be working with the administration to find the best ways to transport those illegal aliens that are already set for release, into communities in their districts and states.”

Democratic lawmakers do not want “open borders,” as the president has suggested. They favor improving border security, but they do not support many of Trump’s hard-line immigration policy proposals, such as building a wall along the southwestern border.

Last year, Trump administration officials had floated the idea of transporting migrants to sanctuary cities, which do not strictly adhere to federal immigration laws, as a way to address the influx of migrants crossing the border with Mexico. One of the highest-profile sanctuary cities is San Francisco, home to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the president’s top political rivals and a thorn in his efforts to change U.S. immigration laws. The White House raised the proposal again in February, suggesting it could punish Democrats for rejecting budget requests for border security.

Pelosi’s office condemned the Trump administration for the idea, which the Department of Homeland Security said Thursday was ultimately rejected.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/us/politics/trump-sanctuary-cities.html" id="03b384fd-8d28-3e55-a5dc-007c5cd6bc96">The New York Times</a>.

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that his administration was “strongly” considering releasing migrants detained at the border into mostly Democratic “sanctuary cities,” suggesting that the idea should make liberals “very happy” because of their immigration policies.

But Trump’s tweets Friday indicated it was not off the table, and the president appeared to revel in the Democratic outrage, saying, “The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy — so this should make them very happy!”

Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., a state with several sanctuary cities, criticized the president’s proposal.

“Trump’s plan to release migrants into ‘enemy’ cities as if they are some kind of contagion is reprehensible,” Markey wrote in a Twitter post. “Trump is obsessed with the border and sanctuary cities because he only wins by dividing people.”

There has been an influx of migrant families crossing the southern border into the United States, exceeding the staffing and resources available for immigration enforcement. And with a shortage of space in shelters and detention centers, immigration officials have been releasing migrants into the country as they wait to appear before an immigration court. Those courts are so backlogged with cases that it can be months or years before the migrants are called to appear before a judge.

A top immigration official at homeland security pushed back last year against the proposal to release migrants into sanctuary cities, and said it would create “an unnecessary operational burden” on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Currently, these migrants are released into border towns. Transporting them to sanctuary cities, which are scattered across the country — with some as far away as Massachusetts and Vermont — would come at a great expense.

Typically, reallocating homeland security funds intended for a specific purpose would require approval from House and Senate appropriators.

Some immigration advocates saw Trump’s proposal as an attempt to stoke racial tensions across the country.

George Gascón, the district attorney for San Francisco, said the proposal was “the clearest sign yet that the president fully intends to chart a path to re-election on the back of racist rhetoric and policies intended to divide us.”

Janet Murguía, president of UnidosUS, formerly the National Council of La Raza, called the proposal “reprehensible.”

“It seems that not only is President Trump attempting to utilize human beings, who have already experienced a traumatic situation, as tools to get back at political foes, but as a vehicle to further divide communities by stoking racial tensions,” she said in a statement.

Trump wrote on Twitter: “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only.... The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!”

But Trump’s Twitter posts Friday indicated it was not off the table, and the president appeared to revel in the Democratic outrage.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday he was open to releasing migrants detained at the border into mostly Democratic “sanctuary cities,” suggesting that the idea should make liberals “very happy” because of their immigration policies.

Trump’s comments come a day after his administration said the policy proposal was never seriously considered. But after the president’s Twitter posts Friday, a White House spokesman said Democrats should work with the administration to welcome migrants into their districts.

Democratic lawmakers do not want “open borders” and favor improving border security. But they do not support many of Trump’s border security proposals, such as building a wall along the southwestern border, or his hard-line views on immigration policy.

Last year, Trump administration officials had floated the idea of transporting migrants to so-called sanctuary cities, which do not strictly adhere to federal immigration laws, as a way to address the influx of migrants crossing the southern border with Mexico. One of the highest-profile sanctuary cities is San Francisco, home to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the president’s top political rivals and a thorn in his efforts to change U.S. immigration laws. The White House raised the proposal again in February, suggesting it could punish Democrats for rejecting budget requests for border security.

The White House on Thursday called the proposal a “nonstory” and said, “these are illegal aliens already being released and sent to U.S. communities every day.”

There has been an influx of migrant families crossing the southern border into the United States, exceeding the manpower and resources available for immigration enforcement. And with a shortage of space in shelters and detention centers, immigration officials have been releasing migrants into the country as they wait to appear before an immigration court. Those courts are so backlogged with cases that it can be months or years until the migrants are called to appear before a judge.

A top immigration official at homeland security pushed back last year against the proposal to release migrants into sanctuary cities, and said it would create “an unnecessary operational burden” on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Last year, Trump administration officials had floated the idea of transporting migrants to sanctuary cities, which do not strictly adhere to federal immigration laws, as a way to address the influx of migrants crossing the southern border with Mexico. One of the highest-profile sanctuary cities is San Francisco, home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Currently, these migrants are released into border towns. Transporting them to sanctuary cities, which are scattered across the country, would come at a great expense.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday he was open to releasing migrants detained at the border into mostly Democratic “sanctuary cities,” suggesting the idea should make liberals “very happy” because of their immigration policies.

He wrote on Twitter: “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only.... The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!”

Trump’s comments come a day after his administration said the policy proposal was never seriously considered.

Last year, Trump administration officials had floated the idea of transporting migrants to so-called sanctuary cities, which do not strictly adhere to federal immigration laws, as a way to address the influx of migrants crossing the southern border. One of the highest-profile sanctuary cities is San Francisco, home to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the president’s top political rivals and a thorn in his efforts to change U.S. immigration laws. The White House raised the proposal again in February, suggesting it could punish Democrats for rejecting budget requests for border security.

A top immigration official at homeland security pushed back against the proposal at the time, and said it would create “an unnecessary operational burden” on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Trump did not cite a specific article in his Twitter post, but his blunt declaration came a day after The Times published a report describing how he had tried to influence and undermine investigations surrounding him, his presidential campaign and his administration.

Trump has long denigrated American news outlets that in his view deliver less-than-favorable reports. Less than a month into his presidency, Trump wrote in a Twitter post that specific news organizations, including The Times, were not his enemy, but were the enemy of the American people. At the time, the statement was shocking because it came from the newly inaugurated leader of a country that prides itself on press freedoms.

The president has periodically returned to that expression during moments of peak criticism. But Wednesday’s denigration went a step further, suggesting that The Times reporting, across the board, was not to be trusted and was done to the detriment of Americans.

The Times’ publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, in a statement cited previous presidents of both political parties who not only championed the free press, but said it was a crucial foundation of a free society.

“All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists,” Sulzberger said. “But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle.”

The Times also defended the article about Trump, which it said “was rigorously reported and based on a review of confidential White House documents as well as interviews with dozens of current and former government officials and others close to President Trump.”

A Times reporter contacted the White House about the article on Friday, days before it was published, and continued to press for comment over the following days.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-enemy-people.html" id="7b5400a0-9da6-3867-af2a-cfc44e242d19">The New York Times</a>.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday took direct aim at The New York Times, calling the news organization a “true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE,” in an escalation from his previous lashings, which were typically addressed to a group of news organizations or over specific Times articles.

Trump Escalates Attacks on The New York Times, Calling It a 'True Enemy of the People'

He wrote: “The New York Times reporting is false. They are a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

The president has periodically returned to that expression during moments of peak criticism.

But Wednesday’s denigration went a step further, suggesting that The Times reporting, across the board, was not to be trusted and was done to the detriment of Americans.

Wednesday was not the first time Sulzberger had made this argument to Trump.

On Jan. 31, Trump assured Sulzberger that he, like previous American presidents, was a great defender of the free press.

“I want to be. I want to be,” Trump said during an Oval Office interview with Sulzberger and two Times reporters.

And in July 2018, Trump made similar statements in an off-the-record meeting with Sulzberger. But nine days later, Trump broke the agreement to keep the meeting private when he tweeted about the conversation and said the two men discussed “the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media &amp; how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, ‘Enemy of the People.’ Sad!”

Sulzberger said the president misrepresented their discussion and called Trump’s attacks on the news media “dangerous and harmful to our country.”

The president’s Twitter feed on the snowy Wednesday morning in Washington was peppered with direct and broad attacks on the news media and retweets of favorable news coverage of him, in addition to a single backhanded welcome to the 2020 presidential race for “Crazy” Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who recently entered the crowded pool of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination.

In one tweet, Trump said, “The Press has never been more dishonest than it is today.,” adding, “The writers don’t even call asking for verification.”

If Trump was suggesting that The Times reporters did not reach out to the White House for comment on the recent article, he was wrong. A Times reporter contacted the White House about the article on Friday, days before it was published, and continued to press for comment over the following days, including on the day the article was published.

In another tweet on Wednesday, Trump weighed in on a new libel lawsuit against The Washington Post, siding with the plaintiffs — the family of Nick Sandmann, a Covington Catholic High School student from Kentucky who was involved in an encounter in Washington last month with a Native American man that went viral on social media. According to the lawsuit, The Post “bullied” Sandmann because he was a “white, Catholic student wearing a red ‘Make America Great Again’ souvenir cap.” The Sandmanns are seeking $250 million in damages.

“Go get them Nick. Fake News!” Trump wrote.

Trump does not cite a specific article, but his blunt declaration comes a day after The Times published a report describing how he has tried to influence and undermine investigations surrounding him, his presidential campaign and his administration.

Trump has long denigrated American news outlets that in his view deliver less-than-favorable reports. Less than a month into his presidency, Trump wrote in a Twitter post that specific news organizations, including The Times, were not his enemy, but were the enemy of the American people. At the time, his statement was shocking as the newly inaugurated leader of a country that prides itself on press freedoms.

But Wednesday’s denigration went a step further, suggesting that The Times reporting, across the board, is not to be trusted and is done to the detriment of Americans.

On Jan. 31, Trump assured the publisher of The Times, A.G. Sulzberger, that he, like previous American presidents, was a great defender of the free press.

“I want to be. I want to be,” Trump said during the interview with Sulzberger and two Times reporters.

In July 2018, Trump made similar statements in an off-the-record meeting with Sulzberger. But nine days later, Trump broke the agreement to keep the meeting private when he tweeted about the conversation and said the two men discussed “the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media &amp; how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, ‘Enemy of the People.’ Sad!”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday took direct aim at The New York Times, calling the news organization a “true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE,” in an escalation from his previous lashings which were typically addressed to a group of news organizations or over specific Times articles.

President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats arrived at a short-term agreement late on Friday, reopening the government after 35 days and the longest government shutdown in history. Lawmakers have until Feb. 15 to reach a compromise on the Republican request for billions of dollars to be allocated for a border wall — a wall Democrats have refused to fund.

Referring to the odds that a deal could be struck over that time, Trump told The Wall Street Journal on Sunday, “I personally think it’s less than 50-50.” Trump said he would use emergency powers to fund the wall if an agreement could not be reached.

In a stark reminder that federal employees were returning to work with the knowledge that they might be forced to go without a paycheck once again next month, one federal agency, the Department of Agriculture, updated its employee information website and said, “We will also leave some of the shutdown-related material up for a period time, should you need to refer back to it.”

Richard Nagle, a lawyer with the Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago, said returning to work after a mandatory furlough required some digging out.

“It’s triage,” he said, eyeing his email inbox. “I’m going to go through the ones that are screaming for attention. I haven’t been on voice mail yet, but I’m sure that’s capped out at 32 messages.”

In the first hour of his day, one question seemed to be echoing through the halls: What did you do?

Colleagues were sharing stories of how they passed the time while they were furloughed. Pretty much everyone confessed to sleeping a little later than usual. Basements were cleaned out, digital photos were organized, hardwood floors were scrubbed until they were gleaming.

Some employees took road trips, visiting extended family in Michigan or driving down to Memphis, eight hours away. Anything to stave off the boredom and anxiety of being home, unpaid, during a Chicago winter.

As employees streamed into the office, managers stood in the lobby, handing out informational papers on things to know: how to apply for back pay, what to do if you forgot your passwords. Some supervisors brought in sweet treats. There were nudges about projects that had been put on hold — and, in some cases, forgotten — and hurried meetings to figure out what could be accomplished before the next potential shutdown.

At a Federal Emergency Management Agency office in Fort Worth, Texas, some employees felt like they were racing against the clock.

“They’re trying to get as much work as they can get done before flood season, tornado season and hurricane season,” said Steve Reaves, a safety officer for FEMA who also leads the union for FEMA employees. “With us, it’s do as much we can before they try to do this again.”

Ryan Baugh, a Department of Homeland Security statistician and a steward for the American Federation of Government Employees, said the possibility that there could be another shutdown had a damaging effect, raising questions about what could realistically be scheduled — meetings, trainings, projects — given the uncertainty.

“We’ll work hard for three weeks, and then we’ll see what happens,” he said. “You could still use the word ‘hostage.’ We’re still the bargaining chip here.”

Baugh said he had not received an official notice from his agency to return to work. And then he realized that was because his government-issued cellphone had not been updated in weeks. That, too, had been forbidden during the shutdown.

The morning commute on Monday in the Washington area was once again bustling after an eerily quiet month of little road traffic during peak travel hours and open seats on trains and buses.

At a Metro station near the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters in Washington, a small group of environmental activists with the nonprofit group Mom’s Clean Air Force welcomed EPA employees back to work with cinnamon rolls.

“Welcome back! Cinnamon roll?” Elizabeth Brandt, a field organizer for the group chirped as employees rode up the Metro escalator. Brandt, holding her daughters, Valencia, 5, and Natalia, 3, said that having grown up next to a toxic cleanup site in Tacoma, Washington, it was important to her to make sure the agency’s workers knew their work was valued.

“I don’t often get a chance to thank people who do that work the way I thank our pediatrician and the people who give my kids shots,” she said.

EPA employees said they were relieved to be back to work yet anxious that the reprieve from the partial government shutdown could be short-lived.

“Most of us cannot afford to be without pay for a month,” said Denise Walker, an agency lawyer. “It’s very stressful for people.”

The National Park Service reopened on Sunday, but prospective visitors were encouraged to check with individual parks to make sure they were receiving visitors. Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo were set to reopen Tuesday.

Federal workers who had turned to food banks to feed their families continued to struggle to make ends meet as they returned to work Monday. Some federal employees have been working without pay for weeks. And many federal contractors are not expected to be paid at all for the days the government was closed.

Jamie Rodny, an investigator at the Housing and Urban Development office in Los Angeles, said she was both excited to return to work and scared she would be facing the same situation in three weeks. She was told she would not see a paycheck on Monday, and said her branch chief told her that he had heard they might get paid on Thursday.

Rodny, who works for the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity division, which oversees the enforcement of federal housing laws, said she arrived at her office to find frantic emails and voice mail messages from people whose cases she was forced to drop when the government closed. Now, as she returns these messages, she expects to hear that some of those complainants were evicted over the past 35 days or are facing debts because of the forced lull in their cases.

“Where do I start,” she asked.

Rodny spoke at the Women’s March in Washington earlier this month, after she was approached by her labor union, the National Federation of Federal Employees, about the financial and emotional pain of workers affected by the shutdown. Her family lives paycheck to paycheck, she said, and during the break in pay, they used their credit cards for as many purchases as possible, which resulted in her credit score dropping. She said they were able to make their mortgage payment because of donations they received through a GoFundMe campaign. She recently started an activist group called “Stop Government Shutdowns Forever.”

The president promised the 800,000 employees who had been furloughed or forced to work that they would be paid “very quickly or as soon as possible,” without providing a specific date. The White House Office of Management and Budget directed agencies to prioritize pay and benefits after reopening.

Some federal agencies worked through the weekend in an effort to get paychecks to their workers as soon as possible. The Department of Agriculture instructed its employees to file their time sheets by noon on Monday and pledged to resume direct deposits into bank accounts by Thursday. On Sunday, the commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection agency, Kevin K. McAleenan, addressed employees on Twitter to say that the agency had already approved a majority of the timecards and pledged to work to makes sure everyone is paid soon.

Aware of the looming Feb. 15 deadline, some lawmakers are trying to pass a law that would outlaw future government shutdowns.

“Shutting down the government should be as off limits in budget negotiations as chemical warfare is in real warfare,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Friday.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/politics/trump-border-wall-deal.html" id="a8b714dc-0f2d-3974-a142-8f6c939fb849">The New York Times</a>.

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of thousands of federal employees returned to work on Monday with a presidential promise of a paycheck “very quickly” but no guarantee that they will be working in three weeks, when a temporary stopgap of funding expires.

Government Reopens as Trump Casts Doubt on Prospects for a Border Wall Deal

As employees streamed into the office, managers stood in the lobby, handing out informational papers on things to know: how to apply for back pay, what to do if you forgot your passwords.

The morning commute on Monday in the Washington area was once again bustling after an eerily quiet month of little road traffic during peak travel hours and open seats on trains and buses. The ambience at a Starbucks at a Metro station in Northern Virginia, home to many federal workers, had returned to its usual bedlam.

“Welcome back! Cinnamon roll?” Eileen Brandt, a field organizer for the group chirped as employees rode up the Metro escalator. Brandt, holding her daughters, Valencia, 5, and Natalia, 3, said that having grown up next to a toxic cleanup site in Tacoma, Washington, it was important to her to make sure the agency’s workers knew their work was valued.

Organizers had pledged to go on with the event, called the March for Life, in a capital full of shuttered federal agencies because of a partial government shutdown.

While thousands of demonstrators marched and cheered on guest speakers, the climate in Washington this year was not the same as a year ago, when President Donald Trump hosted some of the marchers in the Rose Garden with enthusiasm after having just broadened religious freedom protections for health care providers who were opposed to performing abortions and gender reassignment surgery.

This year, Trump addressed the crowd in a prerecorded message and said he had sent a letter to Congress notifying lawmakers that he would veto any legislation that “weakens the protection of human life.” He also said he supported a Senate proposal that would have permanently prohibited government funding to be used for abortion. The bill failed to advance Thursday when Republicans lost a vote to proceed.

“We know that every life has meaning and that every life is worth protecting,” Trump said in his remarks.

Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, made a surprise stop at the rally Friday. Mike Pence, who was scheduled to speak at the organization’s annual dinner that evening, told demonstrators to remain strong.

“And know that we will stand with you until that great day comes where we restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law,” Pence said.

With Trump’s appointment of two conservative Supreme Court justices, anti-abortion conservatives have been hopeful that the high court would, in the future, overturn the landmark 1973 decision that provided a constitutional right to abortion. Fearing this outcome, abortion-rights groups have shifted their focus to states to lobby governments to keep the protections intact.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/us/politics/march-for-life-dc.html" id="cd7ccc11-cb95-306f-a5b7-072b968f6927">The New York Times</a>.

WASHINGTON — Anti-abortion demonstrators descended on the National Mall in Washington on Friday for an annual rally a day after Republicans in the Senate were slowed in their efforts to advance a ban on federal abortion funds.

Thousands March in Washington at Annual Anti-Abortion Rally

A few hours ahead of a scheduled meeting with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leaders in Congress, President Donald Trump pushed a false narrative Tuesday about the progress of a new wall along the country’s Southwest border.

The wall — and funding for it — is the biggest sticking point between the two parties with a partial government shutdown days away unless Congress passes a spending package by Friday of next week. Trump has insisted that $5 billion for a border wall must be included in the spending package under consideration.

Here is some additional context about Trump’s Twitter posts Tuesday morning.

What Trump said: “Despite the large Caravans that WERE forming and heading to our Country, people have not been able to get through our newly built Walls, makeshift Walls &amp; Fences, or Border Patrol Officers &amp; Military. They are now staying in Mexico or going back to their original countries.......”

True.

Trump was promoting his administration’s border security, saying that migrants have not been able to get through to the United States.

Thousands of migrants are waiting on the Mexican side of the border, as the United States processes their requests for asylum. Customs and Border Protection officers typically review 40 to 100 asylum requests a day, which significantly slows down the process. Asylum requests have increased 70 percent over the past year.

Part of the increase is the result of families of migrants fleeing violence in Central America, immigration advocates say.

The Trump administration says the majority of the asylum applications will not be approved by the United States.

What Trump said: “.....Ice, Border Patrol and our Military have done a FANTASTIC job of securing our Southern Border. A Great Wall would be, however, a far easier &amp; less expensive solution. We have already built large new sections &amp; fully renovated others, making them like new. The Democrats,.....”

This requires context.

Trump campaigned on a promise to build a 1,000-mile long border wall to be paid for by Mexico. In late October, prototypes for this wall were unveiled, but no construction on new portions of the wall has commenced, in part because of a lack of funding. The administration has issued a contract to begin construction on parts of a new wall in Texas.

Trump is correct in that some sections of the existing fence are being renovated to replace old barriers with new ones.

It is not yet known, however, whether a wall would be a cheaper way to stop migrants than other immigration proposals, as the president has claimed.

The wall has an estimated price tag of $25 billion. But there is no official cost estimate for the project, making it impossible to conclude it is a “less expensive” solution. Democrats have said the wall would carry a $70 billion price tag, and the Department of Homeland Security has said it was still studying options that would help determine the cost — meaning a final estimate is not available.

What Trump said: “....however, for strictly political reasons and because they have been pulled so far left, do NOT want Border Security. They want Open Borders for anyone to come in. This brings large scale crime and disease. Our Southern Border is now Secure and will remain that way.......”

“.....I look forward to my meeting with Chuck Schumer &amp; Nancy Pelosi. In 2006, Democrats voted for a Wall, and they were right to do so. Today, they no longer want Border Security. They will fight it at all cost, and Nancy must get votes for Speaker. But the Wall will get built...”

False.

Trump has long charged that Democrats want open borders, slinging accusations at a higher clip in the waning days of the midterm elections campaign in November.

Democrats do not want open borders, evidenced in part by border security legislative measures that Democrats have supported. What Democrats do not want is Trump’s costly border wall.

What Trump said: “....People do not yet realize how much of the Wall, including really effective renovation, has already been built. If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build the remaining sections of the Wall. They know how important it is!”

This lacks evidence.

Trump threatened to have the military build the new wall if Democrats did not give him the funding he had asked for, but it was not immediately clear where the military’s funding for this wall would come from.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-wall.html" id="047094c7-2824-3434-a8bb-ae0962ae1acd">The New York Times</a>.

(Fact Check of the Day)

Trump Makes Misleading Border Wall Claims Before Meeting With Democrats

Since President Donald Trump took office, the number of refugees admitted each year has dropped, to 30,000 last fiscal year from 110,000 in the 2017 fiscal year, a ceiling established at the end of the Obama administration.

In meetings over the past few weeks, one senior administration official proposed cutting the program entirely, but leaving the president with the discretion to allow refugees into the country in an emergency. Another proposal under consideration is cutting the number to as low as 10,000 and accepting people only from certain countries. Officials will meet on Tuesday in the Situation Room to discuss what the annual cap should be.

What is the refugee admissions program?

The refugee program, housed at the State Department, resettles displaced people from around the world into the United States, with help from agencies at the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. The focus is on migrants who have fled their own countries for fear of their safety and of persecution or violence, and decamped to another country where they cannot stay permanently.

Under U.S. policy, refugees are considered part of a different category of immigrants than those seeking asylum, even though both groups are often fleeing their countries out of fear for their lives. The difference between the two is mostly a matter of location. Refugees are people displaced from their countries, having fled war or a humanitarian concern, who ask the United States to allow them in. Asylum-seekers are people who are already in the United States and argue to immigration officers that their lives would be in danger if they return home.

How did the program start?

Facing a crisis at the end of World War II, the United Nations created a position to oversee global refugees: the high commissioner for refugees. The United States had welcomed refugees on a mostly ad hoc basis — like accepting hundreds of thousands of Europeans displaced by the war, and later Southeast Asian refugees after the end of Vietnam.

In 1980, the United States created a formal system for accepting refugees, which included increasing the number allowed into the country and establishing an office to oversee all of the resettlement issues. Since then, the United States has accepted 3 million of the 4 million refugees who were resettled around the world, according to a 2018 Pew Research Center analysis.

Why does the Trump administration want to limit the number of refugees?

The administration has broadly pushed to lower the number of all kinds of immigrants who enter the United States, including pursuing policies that favor immigrants who are able to financially support themselves.

Stephen Miller, the president’s immigration architect, has made it clear that he believes refugees are more likely to be uneducated and have few skills, making them drains on the American economy. In 2017, he helped prevent the release of a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that concluded that the net fiscal effect of refugees was positive.

What could the consequences be if the United States accepts fewer refugees?

If the number of refugees allowed into the United States is further reduced or eliminated, it could put American forces stationed overseas in danger, cutting off what former senior military officials have described as a “critical lifeline” for American military, intelligence and diplomatic officials.

Most at risk are refugees from Iraq who worked with American officials as translators and advisers. The United States placed a priority on accepting these Iraqi refugees, and preventing them from resettling in America would “undermine” previous commitments to allies, the retired military officers wrote in a Sept. 3 letter to Trump.

Family members seeking to reunite with refugees already resettled in the United States would also suffer, increasing the number of families separated, said Jennifer Quigley, the director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First.

Another potential consequence, Quigley said, would be if other countries look to the United States as an example and limit their refugee cap, as well.

When countries limit the refugees allowed in, it often leaves people stuck in refugee camps indefinitely. This can make for fertile ground for radicalization and resentment against the United States for abandoning them.

The Defense Department has fought these cuts in the past. Last year, Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, was outspoken about his objections to the decreasing refugee cap, citing national security concerns. But the current secretary, Mark Esper, has not yet made his position known.

This article originally appeared in

What Is the Refugee Program and Why Does the Trump Administration Want to Make Cuts?

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is looking to cut the number of refugees who come to the United States to escape persecution and humanitarian crises, a program that formally dates back to 1980, though the United States had long been accepting refugees and had established its image as a haven for people from around the world.

Eileen Sullivan

Articles written by the author

Trump Wants 'Intelligent Background Checks' and Says McConnell Is 'On Board'

'We Don't Want Guns in the Hands of the Wrong People,' Trump Says

Trump Defends $1.17 Billion in Losses as Just for 'Tax Purposes'

Trump Defends $1.17 Billion in Losses as Just for 'Tax Purposes'

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

Trump Says He Is Considering Releasing Migrants in 'Sanctuary Cities'

Trump Escalates Attacks on The New York Times, Calling It a 'True Enemy of the People'

Trump Escalates Attacks on The New York Times, Calling It a 'True Enemy of the People'

Trump Escalates Attacks on The New York Times, Calling It a 'True Enemy of the People'

Trump Escalates Attacks on The New York Times, Calling It a 'True Enemy of the People'

Government Reopens as Trump Casts Doubt on Prospects for a Border Wall Deal

Government Reopens as Trump Casts Doubt on Prospects for a Border Wall Deal

Government Reopens as Trump Casts Doubt on Prospects for a Border Wall Deal

Thousands March in Washington at Annual Anti-Abortion Rally

Trump Makes Misleading Border Wall Claims Before Meeting With Democrats

What Is the Refugee Program and Why Does the Trump Administration Want to Make Cuts?