Tag: presidency of Donald Trump

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Americans across the country wish that Donald Trump would reveal his secret to staying so young and vibrant, the nation’s personal trainers have confirmed. According to Tracy Klugian, a fitness professional in St. Louis, “not a day goes by” without one of his clients requesting a physical regimen that will give him or her the youthful appearance and mental sharpness that have made Trump the envy of millions. “Clients will come in and say, ‘Make me as young and vibrant as Donald Trump,’ ” Klugian said. “I have to warn them that that’s setting the bar very, very high.” Having analyzed Trump’s fitness habits, Klugian has theorized that his startling youthfulness and off-the-charts vibrance might be the result of eight hours that he devotes each day to “Executive Time.” “Lifting the remote, putting it down, lifting it again, and then tweeting is an exercise routine that very few people could keep up for one hour, and Trump does it for eight,” he said. “I tell my clients, if you want to be as young and vibrant as Donald Trump, you’re going to have to put in that kind of time.” Klugian said that he was also putting clients on a “Trump diet,” consisting entirely of hamburgers and Coke, to give their bodies the fuel necessary to complete the gruelling remote-lifting-and-tweeting workout. But the personal trainer said that he urges his clients not to be discouraged if, even after adopting Trump’s rigorous exercise routine and diet, they fail to achieve Trump’s physical perfection. “At the end of the day, Donald Trump has found the Fountain of Youth, and also the Fountain of Vibrance,” he said.

Lydia Ortiz WASHINGTON — For all his talk about judges not being political actors beholden to a president, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court may hand President Trump one of the biggest political victories of his administration: the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. It also happens to be a coup with profound implications for American democracy. At issue in Department of Commerce v. New York, which the justices considered on Tuesday in an 80-minute hearing, is not the legality of inquiring on the census form about people’s citizenship status. As Justice Neil Gorsuch put it, “It’s not like anybody in the room is suggesting the question is improper to ask in some way, shape or form.” Instead, the case is about administrative process. But those skeptical conservative justices were nowhere to be found on Tuesday. An analysis by census officials found that nearly 6 percent of households with at least one noncitizen, or roughly 6.5 million people, would go uncounted with a citizenship question on the 2020 census. During Tuesday’s arguments, the conservative majority showed little interest in the fact that Mr. Ross ignored the expertise of the United States Census Bureau, which had warned that the citizenship question would lead to significant undercounts because immigrants may be wary of participating. The conservative justices also seemed unbothered that Mr. Ross lobbied hard to get other federal agencies to provide a pretext for his plans — an effort “to obtain cover for a decision” that was already made, as one federal judge phrased it. Or as Justice Elena Kagan said on Tuesday, Mr. Ross was “shopping for a need” for the citizenship data. Federal law, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “grants the president broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States.” So it may come to pass that, no matter how ugly the underlying evidence or how antithetical this change is to an “actual enumeration” of everyone in the United States, the justices will once again let the administration have its way.

The US has announced it will no longer exempt countries from sanctions that aim to impose a complete oil embargo on Iran. Officials said the Trump administration would not renew any of the sanctions waivers granted to a handful of countries, including China, India, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, when those waivers expire on 2 May. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should do its diligence and err on the side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits.” Trump administration unveils full extent of US sanctions on Iran Read more Neither Pompeo nor senior state department officials would say whether sanctions would be immediately imposed on the affected countries on 3 May, if oil purchases continued. Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action (JCPOA), in May 2018 and threatened US sanctions against any international companies that continued to do business with Iran. Trump administration officials said the waivers, originally granted to eight countries, were motivated by a desire to avoid a spike in oil prices in a tight market last year. They said the waivers were being allowed to end because there was now greater supply. “When Trump withdrew from the Iran deal, it sent the US on a course of self-isolation and dwindling options,” Suzanne DiMaggio, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said. “If they want to continue to buy Iranian oil it has ways to structure the transaction in a way it doesn’t matter if the US sanctions it.”

Directionally, the overall policy posture is center-right. The president retains the firm support of most Republican voters. Under the January 1973 Paris peace accords, North Vietnam recognized the continued existence of a non-Communist government in Saigon, while the United States confirmed its own ground force departure. Nixon’s critics have long argued that he had no interest in or expectation of supporting South Vietnam’s continued independence with American ground troops gone. Reports indicate that key outlines of a possible settlement include the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and a promise from the Taliban never to attack the United States. In the year following his re-election, revelations of Richard Nixon’s criminal misconduct over the Watergate affair consumed his presidency. In the end it was stalwart conservatives like Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who told the president directly that his impeachment and removal were certain. Congressional Democrats will therefore continue aggressive investigations on a number of matters, including Trump’s tax returns, his inauguration committee, the Trump organization, obstruction of justice, and possible campaign finance violations. Second, U.S. party politics are considerably more polarized than they were in Nixon’s day, and this obviously affects the process in more than one direction. The nature of Donald Trump’s character and personality is furthermore that he will always fight back against such allegations with the ferocity of a wild honey badger.

The Trump administration has opened the door to a seismic overhaul of immigration and asylum procedure that could lead to the indefinite detention of thousands of asylum seekers who cross the border illegally. The US attorney general, William Barr, on Tuesday issued guidance overruling a precedent set by George W Bush’s justice department in 2005, which enshrined asylum seekers’ right to bond, irrespective of how they entered the country. Barr stated in his updated guidance that the 2005 decision was “wrongly decided” and he would move to block immigration judges from offering people who have crossed the border illegally and have established a reasonable claim of torture or persecution the chance of release as their cases are decided in immigration court. A footnote included in Barr’s decision revealed that homeland security had requested that the attorney general delay his decision on bond “so that DHS may conduct necessary operational planning” to accommodate the change. Children seeking asylum are currently protected by a separate ruling from a federal court in California that ordered they must be released from detention after 20 days. The Trump administration, which has pledged to end the policy of so-called “catch and release”, has unsuccessfully tried to reverse this ruling. A justice department official did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the department would seek to use Barr’s new rules in cases involving families and children. Human rights groups met Barr’s decision with immediate condemnation. “Seeking asylum is a human right, not a crime, and families forced to flee for their lives shouldn’t be treated like criminals” said Charanya Krishnaswami, Americas advocacy director for Amnesty International USA. She argued the decision could force parents to decide to either be locked up with their children indefinitely, or relinquish custody of them for the duration of a months- or years-long approval process.

How are Americans feeling about President Trump's tax cut bill? Well, not very good. Polls suggests that it remains really unpopular. What's the Dems' biggest achievement in their first 100 days in the House? That'll continue to be their number one role in the House since they don't control the Senate. Will the Mueller report reveal more details of collusion? I'd say it's much more likely to give us details about potential obstruction rather than collusion, but I'm not sure there will be huge blockbusters in there. Is President Trump moving to consolidate power? He's cleared out DHS, he's got acting directors or leaders in six agencies not Senate confirmed. And go deeper on topics like cybersecurity and artificial intelligence Microsoft On The Issues.

Cancer patients, doctors and drug companies are urging the Trump administration to remove the restrictions and broaden coverage so more patients can benefit from the treatment, known as CAR T cell therapy, or CAR-T. Medicare and other insurers typically pay for drugs as they are used, from month to month and year to year. The Trump administration has proposed covering CAR-T therapy when it is prescribed by a cancer specialist and given in a hospital to Medicare patients whose cancer has not responded to other treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. “But when you actually consider what you are paying for over the course of someone’s lifetime, and you think about the cost of other therapies that this is replacing, it actually is not astronomical.” There is no national Medicare policy for covering CAR T cell therapy. The request for a Medicare coverage decision came from one of the nation’s largest insurers, UnitedHealth Group, which expressed concern that “CAR-T therapies could create significant financial risks” for the government and for private Medicare Advantage plans. UnitedHealth is the largest provider of Medicare Advantage plans, with about five million people enrolled in its plans. Approving payment for this therapy right now will save the lives of patients who have run out of other options.” Advocates for patients and physician groups said the coverage policy proposed by the Trump administration was too limited and could delay lifesaving treatment for cancer patients who were very ill. “We have a new therapy, a result of years of research, and it has been approved by the F.D.A.,” said Kirsten A. Sloan, a vice president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. A patient’s health care provider is in the best position to determine when and whether a patient will benefit from CAR T cell therapy and should not be limited by a narrow coverage policy.” Ted Okon, the executive director of the Community Oncology Alliance, an advocacy group for cancer doctors and patients, said the coverage criteria proposed by the Trump administration were “much more restrictive” than the uses of CAR-T therapy permitted in the F.D.A.-approved label. “No one anticipated such an extraordinary expense when Medicare’s hospital payment formulas were adopted.” Under the Trump administration proposal, Medicare would pay for CAR-T therapy in patients who have “relapsed or refractory cancer” that has resisted other treatments. The eligibility requirements “may exclude some patients who could benefit from treatment,” said Cynthia A. Bens, a senior vice president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition, an education and advocacy group.

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation, in an unprecedented step aimed at escalating Washington’s campaign of “maximum pressure”. According to the Wall Street Journal, the administration is preparing to announce the move as early as Monday. The US state department declined to comment on the report on Friday evening. “It is hard to imagine a bigger sanctions stick than that,” said Richard Nephew, a former principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the state department, and the author of The Art of Sanctions. “Frankly, I still don’t believe that this is consistent with the intent of the underlying law, which was to target non-state actors.” Trump wants to keep US troops in Iraq to 'be able to watch' Iran Read more The move, if carried out, is likely to increase the trepidation on the part of foreign companies when it comes to trading with or investing in Iran. “This is uncharted territory. We haven’t done this before,” said Ariane Tabatabai, an Iran expert at the Rand Corporation. “It is a sign the US is prepared to fully escalate ‘maximum pressure’ but what is lacking is a clear endgame. Mohammad Ali Shabani, an Iran scholar at Soas University of London, said that if the designation is announced, the Iranian government is likely to respond in kind. US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo Read more “First and foremost, the Iranian parliament may move to label the US military a terrorist organization,” Shabani said, but he added he thought the Iranian military would avoid being drawn into a direct clash with US forces in the region.

Good Wednesday morning. Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today. _____________________ • A new fight over the Affordable Care Act broke out on Tuesday, as Democrats denounced the Trump administration for asking a federal appeals court to invalidate it. The surprise decision, which could leave 21 million people without health insurance if the court agrees, gave Democrats a chance to move past impeachment and discuss kitchen-table issues like health care. • The most enduring legacy of Robert S. Mueller’s investigation may be his decision not to take action on President Trump’s norm-shattering interventions in the law enforcement system. • As the Trump administration celebrates Mr. Mueller’s finding that the president did not conspire with Russia, a darker theme is emerging: a message that Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies will pay. • Scientists at the Interior Department spent years examining the threat that pesticides present to hundreds of endangered species. “We’re not focused on impeachment,” said one. • Joseph R. Biden Jr. said Tuesday that he regretted his role in the 1991 hearings over Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas, who became a Supreme Court justice. That episode could be a vulnerability if Mr. Biden runs for president.

(CNN)Just 24 hours removed from arguably his best day as President, Donald Trump picked a political fight he cannot win. That decision, which caught even many Trump allies by surprise, again thrusts the health care issue to the center of the political debate, and virtually ensures that the 2020 election -- like the 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012 and 2010 elections before it -- will turn on the ACA. Switching the spotlight of the national debate from Russia to health care so quickly would be risky under any circumstances but is particularly problematic given that a) the past five elections have shown that people care deeply about and vote on the issue of health care and b) getting rid of Obamacare is not a broadly popular view with the American public. Since May 2017, according to Kaiser data, more people have approved of Obamacare than disapprove -- a sea change from most of the previous five years, when the law was consistently underwater in terms of approval. "Republicans will do absolutely anything to divert attention away from their votes to take away Americans' health care," then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said in the days leading up to the midterms. And, following Democrats' takeover of the House in 2018, Pelosi was just as clear; "Health care was on the ballot, and health care won," she said. More than 4 in 10 voters in 2018 said that health care was their top priority in the election, according to exit polling. In the 2016 presidential election, Trump ran explicitly on a plan to repeal and replace the ACA. By 2018, Democrats were able to capitalize on the fact that House Republicans had approved a repeal and replace package that never became law because it failed in a late-night vote in the Senate. Trump has spent the entire first two years of his presidency playing to his hardcore base -- and, seen through that lens, the decision to re-litigate the ACA fight makes some sense.