The latest bid backed by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-fumes-as-us-health-care-reform-bid-collapses-18056" target="_blank">US President Donald Trump</a> to dismantle his predecessor&#39;s health care law likely unraveled Monday when a crucial third Republican formally came out against the plan.

Senator Susan Collins, who has waffled for weeks on the latest measure that would overhaul Obamacare, joined <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-senator-mccain-opposes-obamacare-repeal-bill-in-possible-fatal-blow-20554" target="_blank">Republican colleagues John McCain and Rand Paul</a> as a firm no votes on the legislation.&nbsp;

Republican leaders had hoped to schedule a vote on the bill, which replaces the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a system of block grants to states, before a September 30 deadline that would allow them to pass it with a simple majority.

&quot;This is simply not the way that we should be approaching an important and complex issue that must be handled thoughtfully and fairly for all Americans,&quot; Senator Susan Collins said in a statement announcing her opposition.

The bill would make sweeping changes and cuts to Medicaid, with experts projecting a staggering $1 trillion-plus in cuts between 2020 and 2036 to the federal health program for the poor and the disabled which has been expanded under Obamacare.&nbsp;

&quot;This would have a devastating impact on a program that has been on the books for 50 years and provides health care to our most vulnerable citizens,&quot; Collins said.

Compounding the problem for the bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary study of the new legislation, and projected that while it would reduce the budget deficit by some $133 billion, it would &quot;result in millions of fewer people with comprehensive health insurance that covers high-cost medical events.&quot;

Republicans hold 52 seats in the 100-member Senate and can afford just two defectors.&nbsp;

Collins&#39;s opposition, along with McCain and Paul, essentially sinks the Republican effort, which had gained steam in the two weeks since senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy unveiled their new plan.

It is sure to be yet another embarrassing blow to the Trump White House, which has yet to secure a major legislative victory more than eight months into his turbulent presidency.

Paul criticised as &quot;unseemly&quot; Graham&#39;s and Cassidy&#39;s latest effort to tweak their legislation to sweeten the deal for states like Alaska, Arizona, and Maine in order to lure skeptical senators from those states.

Paul has attacked the bill as a fake repeal of Obamacare.

&quot;It represents Republicans accepting a trillion dollars of Obamacare spending,&quot; Paul said.

Some Republicans still had been holding out hope that the measure would get across the finish line.

&quot;We&#39;re going to vote on this thing and we&#39;re going to pass it,&quot; Senator Dean Heller, a co-sponsor of the Graham-Cassidy bill, told reporters.

But that was before the Collins statement was released.

&#39;Kill the bill!&#39;&nbsp;

Earlier in the day, tensions over the controversial bill boiled over at the only scheduled Senate hearing on the health measure, when police forcibly removed disabled protesters, pulling some of them from their wheelchairs when they disobeyed orders to leave.

&quot;No cuts to Medicaid! Save our liberty!&quot; protesters shouted, forcing the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Orrin Hatch, to suspend the hearing shortly after calling it to order.

Insurance companies and&nbsp;health, doctor and patient groups opposed to the plan, tensions burst into the open in what is scheduled as the only public hearing on the contentious bill.

Several dozen protesters lined the halls, chanting &quot;Kill the bill, don&#39;t kill us!&quot; At least 50 US Capitol Police were on hand to maintain order, a rare scene in Congress.

Graham and Cassidy defended their legislation, which preserves some of the federal funding of Barack Obama&#39;s ACA but converts it to a system of block grants to the 50 US states.

&quot;This is not the last chance, this is the best chance&quot; to preserve health care for millions, Graham said.&nbsp;

&quot;If you don&#39;t find a way to stop the bleeding, then it&#39;s going to basically collapse before our eyes.&quot;

Democrats stand united against the measure.

&quot;Health care is a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it,&quot; Senate Democrat Mazie Hirono, who was invited to testify, said as she described being diagnosed earlier this year with stage four kidney cancer.

&quot;Millions of lives are at stake.&quot;

Senator Susan Collins, who has waffled for weeks on the latest measure that would overhaul Obamacare, joined Republican colleagues John McCain and Rand Paul as a firm no votes on the legislation

The latest bid backed by US President Donald Trump to dismantle his predecessor's health care law likely unraveled Monday when a crucial third Republican formally came out against the plan. Senator Susan Collins, who has waffled for weeks on the latest measure that would overhaul Obamacare, joined Republican colleagues John McCain and Rand Paul as a firm no votes on the legislation. Republican leaders had hoped to schedule a vote on the bill, which replaces the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a system of block grants to states, before a September 30 deadline that would allow them to pass it with a simple majority. "This is simply not the way that we should be approaching an important and complex issue that must be handled thoughtfully and fairly for all Americans," Senator Susan Collins said in a statement announcing her opposition. The bill would make sweeping changes and cuts to Medicaid, with experts projecting a staggering $1 trillion-plus in cuts between 2020 and 2036 to the federal health program for the poor and the disabled which has been expanded under Obamacare. "This would have a devastating impact on a program that has been on the books for 50 years and provides health care to our most vulnerable citizens," Collins said. Compounding the problem for the bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary study of the new legislation, and projected that while it would reduce the budget deficit by some $133 billion, it would "result in millions of fewer people with comprehensive health insurance that covers high-cost medical events." Republicans hold 52 seats in the 100-member Senate and can afford just two defectors. Collins's opposition, along with McCain and Paul, essentially sinks the Republican effort, which had gained steam in the two weeks since senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy unveiled their new plan. It is sure to be yet another embarrassing blow to the Trump White House, which has yet to secure a major legislative victory more than eight months into his turbulent presidency. Paul criticised as "unseemly" Graham's and Cassidy's latest effort to tweak their legislation to sweeten the deal for states like Alaska, Arizona, and Maine in order to lure skeptical senators from those states. Paul has attacked the bill as a fake repeal of Obamacare. "It represents Republicans accepting a trillion dollars of Obamacare spending," Paul said. Some Republicans still had been holding out hope that the measure would get across the finish line. "We're going to vote on this thing and we're going to pass it," Senator Dean Heller, a co-sponsor of the Graham-Cassidy bill, told reporters. But that was before the Collins statement was released. 'Kill the bill!' Earlier in the day, tensions over the controversial bill boiled over at the only scheduled Senate hearing on the health measure, when police forcibly removed disabled protesters, pulling some of them from their wheelchairs when they disobeyed orders to leave. "No cuts to Medicaid! Save our liberty!" protesters shouted, forcing the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Orrin Hatch, to suspend the hearing shortly after calling it to order. Insurance companies and health, doctor and patient groups opposed to the plan, tensions burst into the open in what is scheduled as the only public hearing on the contentious bill. Several dozen protesters lined the halls, chanting "Kill the bill, don't kill us!" At least 50 US Capitol Police were on hand to maintain order, a rare scene in Congress. Graham and Cassidy defended their legislation, which preserves some of the federal funding of Barack Obama's ACA but converts it to a system of block grants to the 50 US states. "This is not the last chance, this is the best chance" to preserve health care for millions, Graham said. "If you don't find a way to stop the bleeding, then it's going to basically collapse before our eyes." Democrats stand united against the measure. "Health care is a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it," Senate Democrat Mazie Hirono, who was invited to testify, said as she described being diagnosed earlier this year with stage four kidney cancer. "Millions of lives are at stake."

Republican health plan likely dead as key US senator defects

Jared Kushner used a personal email account to communicate with White House aides in his capacity as a senior adviser to his father-in-law&nbsp;US President Donald&nbsp;Trump, according to reports.

As a candidate,&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;routinely attacked his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, telling supporters &quot;she has to go to jail&quot; over the affair.

Following an investigation, the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against her, but noted she had been &quot;extremely careless&quot; in her handling of sensitive information.

Citing four officials, Politico said Kushner used a personal server to send messages to senior White House officials and outside advisers about media coverage, planning events, and other issues.

There is no suggestion the emails contained highly sensitive information or were classified, it added, but they could fall foul of the Presidential Records Act, which requires all documents related to the president&#39;s personal and political activities to be archived.

Kushner&#39;s numerous responsibilities within the&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;administration include brokering peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner, confirmed the report in a statement to the media.&nbsp;

&quot;Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account,&quot; he said.

&quot;These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address.&quot;

In addition to the email controversy, Kushner is facing scrutiny over the&nbsp;Trump campaigns alleged collusion with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, which is the subject of multiple ongoing probes including by independent prosecutor Robert Mueller.

In June 2016,&nbsp;Trump&#39;s eldest&nbsp;son&nbsp;Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;Jr, Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort met with a Russian government attorney who an intermediary claimed had incriminating information about Clinton.

As a candidate,?Trump?routinely attacked his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, telling supporters "she has to go to jail" over the affair.

Jared Kushner used a personal email account to communicate with White House aides in his capacity as a senior adviser to his father-in-law US President Donald Trump, according to reports. As a candidate, Trump routinely attacked his Democrat rival Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, telling supporters "she has to go to jail" over the affair. Following an investigation, the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against her, but noted she had been "extremely careless" in her handling of sensitive information. Citing four officials, Politico said Kushner used a personal server to send messages to senior White House officials and outside advisers about media coverage, planning events, and other issues. There is no suggestion the emails contained highly sensitive information or were classified, it added, but they could fall foul of the Presidential Records Act, which requires all documents related to the president's personal and political activities to be archived. Kushner's numerous responsibilities within the Trump administration include brokering peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner, confirmed the report in a statement to the media. "Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account," he said. "These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address." In addition to the email controversy, Kushner is facing scrutiny over the Trump campaigns alleged collusion with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, which is the subject of multiple ongoing probes including by independent prosecutor Robert Mueller. In June 2016, Trump's eldest son Donald Trump Jr, Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort met with a Russian government attorney who an intermediary claimed had incriminating information about Clinton.

Kushner used personal email for White House business: Report

A wave of protests swept across the National Football League on Sunday as President Donald Trump escalated his feud with players who kneel during the US national anthem to draw attention to racial injustice.

Trump ignited a firestorm of criticism after comments on Friday in which he described NFL players who chose to take a knee through renditions of &quot;The Star-Spangled Banner&quot; as &quot;sons of bitches&quot; who should be fired.

The US leader doubled down on those remarks in an early morning tweet, urging fans to boycott the NFL as long as the protests continued.

&quot;If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag &amp; Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!&quot; Trump wrote.

Yet players throughout America&#39;s most popular sport took a defiant stance just hours later, kneeling, linking arms or raising clenched fists during the anthem.

More than 150 players could be seen kneeling or sitting in the 14 games that took place Sunday, easily the largest such demonstration since former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first began protesting in 2016.

One of the biggest protests took place in the nation&#39;s capital, where almost the entire lineup of the Oakland Raiders team sat on their bench ahead of their game with the Washington Redskins.

A day of demonstrations began at the London game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Baltimore Ravens at Wembley Stadium, where a large number of players from both teams knelt.

In Nashville, neither the Seattle Seahawks nor the Tennessee Titans took to the field to observe the national anthem.

&quot;We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of this color in this country,&quot; Seattle players said in a statement just prior to kickoff.

&nbsp;&#39;Deeply disappointed&#39;&nbsp;

In Foxborough, around 15 members of the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots took a knee during the anthem.

Star quarterback Tom Brady stood but linked arms with his teammates. Reports said the protests were greeted with scattered boos as some fans chanted &quot;Stand up!&quot;

Patriots receiver Brandin Cooks, who scored the game-winning touchdown, later explained his decision to kneel, rejecting accusations it was unpatriotic.

&quot;A lot of people think we&#39;re disrespecting the flag and the military, but my father was a marine, my uncle was a marine, family fought in the Vietnam war. I have the utmost respect for the men and women that fight for our freedom,&quot; Cooks told reporters.

In Chicago, the Pittsburgh Steelers chose to remain in their locker room during the anthem ahead of their clash with the Bears.

Buffalo Bills star Lesean McCoy, who stretched on the turf during the anthem, said: &quot;I can&#39;t stand and support something where the leader of our country is acting like a jerk.&quot;

In Detroit, meanwhile, the singer of the national anthem Rico LaVelle dramatically dropped to his knee at the end of his rendition. At least eight Detroit Lions players were seen kneeling during the anthem while others linked arms.

Trump responded to the protests on Twitter. &quot;Standing with locked arms is good, kneeling is not acceptable,&quot; he wrote.

In subsequent remarks to reporters, Trump denied there was a racial dimension to his criticism of activist athletes, most of whom are black.

&quot;This has nothing to do with race or anything else. This has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag,&quot; Trump said.

The players&#39; protests were the latest twist in a bitter war of words between Trump and US professional sports.

On Saturday, he had also drawn a furious backlash from NBA stars after stating on Twitter that the champion Golden State Warriors and star Stephen Curry would not be invited to attend a White House reception.

Protests spread&nbsp;

Trump&#39;s outburst drew a stinging response from across the NBA, with Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James describing the US leader as a &quot;bum.&quot;

The trenchant response from NFL and NBA players to Trump&#39;s comments had shown signs of spreading to other leagues, with a baseball player kneeling during the anthem on Saturday.

In game one of the WNBA Finals on Sunday, members of the Los Angeles Sparks remained in their dressing room during the anthem. Their opponents, the Minnesota Lynx, stood to attention with arms locked.

Track and field star Allyson Felix, a six-time Olympic gold medallist, also spoke out in support of the protests.

&quot;Enough is enough. We have the power to create change,&quot; she said.

Kaepernick&#39;s protest was aimed at drawing more attention to treatment of minorities in America following a spate of deadly police shootings of black men.

Critics counter that the protests are disrespectful of the country and its military.&nbsp;

A wave of protests swept across the National Football League on Sunday as President Donald Trump escalated his feud with players who kneel during the US national anthem to draw attention to racial injustice

A wave of protests swept across the National Football League on Sunday as President Donald Trump escalated his feud with players who kneel during the US national anthem to draw attention to racial injustice. Trump ignited a firestorm of criticism after comments on Friday in which he described NFL players who chose to take a knee through renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as "sons of bitches" who should be fired. The US leader doubled down on those remarks in an early morning tweet, urging fans to boycott the NFL as long as the protests continued. "If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" Trump wrote. Yet players throughout America's most popular sport took a defiant stance just hours later, kneeling, linking arms or raising clenched fists during the anthem. More than 150 players could be seen kneeling or sitting in the 14 games that took place Sunday, easily the largest such demonstration since former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first began protesting in 2016. One of the biggest protests took place in the nation's capital, where almost the entire lineup of the Oakland Raiders team sat on their bench ahead of their game with the Washington Redskins. A day of demonstrations began at the London game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Baltimore Ravens at Wembley Stadium, where a large number of players from both teams knelt. In Nashville, neither the Seattle Seahawks nor the Tennessee Titans took to the field to observe the national anthem. "We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of this color in this country," Seattle players said in a statement just prior to kickoff. 'Deeply disappointed' In Foxborough, around 15 members of the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots took a knee during the anthem. Star quarterback Tom Brady stood but linked arms with his teammates. Reports said the protests were greeted with scattered boos as some fans chanted "Stand up!" Patriots receiver Brandin Cooks, who scored the game-winning touchdown, later explained his decision to kneel, rejecting accusations it was unpatriotic. "A lot of people think we're disrespecting the flag and the military, but my father was a marine, my uncle was a marine, family fought in the Vietnam war. I have the utmost respect for the men and women that fight for our freedom," Cooks told reporters. In Chicago, the Pittsburgh Steelers chose to remain in their locker room during the anthem ahead of their clash with the Bears. Buffalo Bills star Lesean McCoy, who stretched on the turf during the anthem, said: "I can't stand and support something where the leader of our country is acting like a jerk." In Detroit, meanwhile, the singer of the national anthem Rico LaVelle dramatically dropped to his knee at the end of his rendition. At least eight Detroit Lions players were seen kneeling during the anthem while others linked arms. Trump responded to the protests on Twitter. "Standing with locked arms is good, kneeling is not acceptable," he wrote. In subsequent remarks to reporters, Trump denied there was a racial dimension to his criticism of activist athletes, most of whom are black. "This has nothing to do with race or anything else. This has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag," Trump said. The players' protests were the latest twist in a bitter war of words between Trump and US professional sports. On Saturday, he had also drawn a furious backlash from NBA stars after stating on Twitter that the champion Golden State Warriors and star Stephen Curry would not be invited to attend a White House reception. Protests spread Trump's outburst drew a stinging response from across the NBA, with Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James describing the US leader as a "bum." The trenchant response from NFL and NBA players to Trump's comments had shown signs of spreading to other leagues, with a baseball player kneeling during the anthem on Saturday. In game one of the WNBA Finals on Sunday, members of the Los Angeles Sparks remained in their dressing room during the anthem. Their opponents, the Minnesota Lynx, stood to attention with arms locked. Track and field star Allyson Felix, a six-time Olympic gold medallist, also spoke out in support of the protests. "Enough is enough. We have the power to create change," she said. Kaepernick's protest was aimed at drawing more attention to treatment of minorities in America following a spate of deadly police shootings of black men. Critics counter that the protests are disrespectful of the country and its military.

Wave of protests grip NFL after Trump urges fan boycott

US Senator&nbsp;John&nbsp;McCain said on Friday he opposes the latest Republican bill to dismantle Obamacare, dealing the measure what could be a fatal blow given the party&#39;s slim Senate majority.

With several other Republicans still undecided on the measure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier this week he intended to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote next week, though he did not promise to do so.

A vote would set the stage for another dramatic Capitol Hill decision on the 2010 law that brought health insurance to millions of Americans and became former Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s signature domestic achievement.

For seven years, Republicans have hammered Obamacare as an unwarranted government intrusion into American healthcare. President Donald Trump made repealing Obamacare one of his top campaign promises in 2016. Democrats have fiercely defended it.

The announcement by McCain, a Republican who has often been at odds with Trump and who cast a crucial &quot;no&quot; vote in July that helped defeat an earlier Republican repeal bill, had the potential to up-end McConnell&#39;s plans. McConnell&#39;s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

At a rally in Alabama, Trump said McCain&#39;s decision was &quot;totally unexpected, terrible.&quot; Despite the setback, Trump said: &quot;We still have a chance. We&#39;re going to do it eventually.&quot;

Republicans have only a narrow Senate majority and cannot afford to lose many votes on the bill. They are also on a tight timetable.

McConnell has been trying to schedule a vote on the bill by Sept. 30, the last day on which the bill could pass with only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. A vote taken any later than that would have to garner at least 60 votes for passage.

Weeks after the humiliating defeat in July, when the Obamacare repeal fight seemed to be over, the current bill was introduced by Republican&nbsp;Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain&#39;s, and seemed to gain momentum.

McCain says details on impact needed

But McCain on Friday laid out his opposition in a statement: &quot;I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal.&quot; He said he took no pleasure in announcing his opposition and noted that the bill&#39;s authors &quot;are my dear friends.&quot;

McCain complained about the rushed process Republicans&nbsp;used to push the bill forward. He said he would consider supporting a bill like it if it had emerged from extensive hearings, debate and amendment. &quot;But that has not been the case,&quot; he said.

McCain, who cast his &quot;no&quot; vote in July just days after being diagnosed with an aggressive brain cancer, said he could not support the bill without knowing how much it would cost, how it would affect insurance premiums and &quot;how many people will be helped or hurt by it,&quot; information that will not be available until the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides a full assessment at the end of September.

The Graham-Cassidy bill would take the federal money spent on the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, as well as subsidies to help Americans buy private insurance and divvy it up to the states in block grants. Advocates say that would give states more discretion to manage their own healthcare schemes.

Although the CBO has not yet fully assessed the bill&#39;s effects, independent analyses indicate it would fundamentally redistribute federal healthcare money, generally with Republican-leaning states benefiting and Democratic-leaning states losing, largely because a majority of the states that opted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare were Democratic-leaning.

A Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll said Americans prefer Obamacare to the Graham-Cassidy alternative by 56 per cent to 33 per cent.

Graham said in a statement he was not giving up. &quot;We press on,&quot; he said.

Shares of health insurers turned up after McCain announced his oppositions. Centene ended 1.6 per cent higher while Humana closed up 0.2 per cent, reversing earlier losses.

Winners and Losers among states

State-by-state impacts from Graham-Cassidy would vary, the Axios news website reported on Friday, citing a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the unit of the Department&nbsp;of Health and Human Services that oversees Medicaid and the Obamacare program.

The CMS study found that by 2026, Alaska would lose 38 per cent of its federal funding for insurance subsidies and Medicaid; Arizona would lose 9 per cent; Maine would gain 44 per cent; Ohio would lose 18 per cent; and West Virginia would lose 23 per cent, Axios reported.

These states are home to Republican&nbsp;senators who are under pressure on healthcare. Both of Alaska&#39;s Republican&nbsp;senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, are still on the fence over Graham-Cassidy.

The CMS had no immediate comment on the Axios report.

Besides McCain, Kentucky&#39;s Rand Paul is the only other Republican&nbsp;senator&nbsp;who has publicly said he opposes the bill.

Maine&#39;s Susan Collins said she was leaning against the bill, the Portland Press-Herald newspaper reported on Friday. Kansas&#39; Jerry Moran is also undecided.

No Democrats support the bill.

To pass Graham-Cassidy, the Republicans need at least 50 votes in the 100-seat Senate, which they control 52-48, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a potential tie-breaking vote.

The insurance industry, hospitals, medical advocacy groups such as the American Medical Association, American Heart Association and American Cancer Society, the AARP advocacy group for the elderly and consumer activists oppose the bill.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, estimated the bill would cause more than 30 million people to lose insurance.

Weeks after the humiliating defeat in July, when the Obamacare repeal fight seemed to be over, the current bill was introduced by Republican?Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain's, and seemed to gain momentum

US Senator John McCain said on Friday he opposes the latest Republican bill to dismantle Obamacare, dealing the measure what could be a fatal blow given the party's slim Senate majority. With several other Republicans still undecided on the measure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said earlier this week he intended to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote next week, though he did not promise to do so. A vote would set the stage for another dramatic Capitol Hill decision on the 2010 law that brought health insurance to millions of Americans and became former Democratic President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement. For seven years, Republicans have hammered Obamacare as an unwarranted government intrusion into American healthcare. President Donald Trump made repealing Obamacare one of his top campaign promises in 2016. Democrats have fiercely defended it. The announcement by McCain, a Republican who has often been at odds with Trump and who cast a crucial "no" vote in July that helped defeat an earlier Republican repeal bill, had the potential to up-end McConnell's plans. McConnell's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. At a rally in Alabama, Trump said McCain's decision was "totally unexpected, terrible." Despite the setback, Trump said: "We still have a chance. We're going to do it eventually." Republicans have only a narrow Senate majority and cannot afford to lose many votes on the bill. They are also on a tight timetable. McConnell has been trying to schedule a vote on the bill by Sept. 30, the last day on which the bill could pass with only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate. A vote taken any later than that would have to garner at least 60 votes for passage. Weeks after the humiliating defeat in July, when the Obamacare repeal fight seemed to be over, the current bill was introduced by Republican Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, a close friend of McCain's, and seemed to gain momentum. McCain says details on impact needed But McCain on Friday laid out his opposition in a statement: "I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal." He said he took no pleasure in announcing his opposition and noted that the bill's authors "are my dear friends." McCain complained about the rushed process Republicans used to push the bill forward. He said he would consider supporting a bill like it if it had emerged from extensive hearings, debate and amendment. "But that has not been the case," he said. McCain, who cast his "no" vote in July just days after being diagnosed with an aggressive brain cancer, said he could not support the bill without knowing how much it would cost, how it would affect insurance premiums and "how many people will be helped or hurt by it," information that will not be available until the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office provides a full assessment at the end of September. The Graham-Cassidy bill would take the federal money spent on the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, as well as subsidies to help Americans buy private insurance and divvy it up to the states in block grants. Advocates say that would give states more discretion to manage their own healthcare schemes. Although the CBO has not yet fully assessed the bill's effects, independent analyses indicate it would fundamentally redistribute federal healthcare money, generally with Republican-leaning states benefiting and Democratic-leaning states losing, largely because a majority of the states that opted to expand Medicaid under Obamacare were Democratic-leaning. A Washington Post-ABC News opinion poll said Americans prefer Obamacare to the Graham-Cassidy alternative by 56 per cent to 33 per cent. Graham said in a statement he was not giving up. "We press on," he said. Shares of health insurers turned up after McCain announced his oppositions. Centene ended 1.6 per cent higher while Humana closed up 0.2 per cent, reversing earlier losses. Winners and Losers among states State-by-state impacts from Graham-Cassidy would vary, the Axios news website reported on Friday, citing a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the unit of the Department of Health and Human Services that oversees Medicaid and the Obamacare program. The CMS study found that by 2026, Alaska would lose 38 per cent of its federal funding for insurance subsidies and Medicaid; Arizona would lose 9 per cent; Maine would gain 44 per cent; Ohio would lose 18 per cent; and West Virginia would lose 23 per cent, Axios reported. These states are home to Republican senators who are under pressure on healthcare. Both of Alaska's Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, are still on the fence over Graham-Cassidy. The CMS had no immediate comment on the Axios report. Besides McCain, Kentucky's Rand Paul is the only other Republican senator who has publicly said he opposes the bill. Maine's Susan Collins said she was leaning against the bill, the Portland Press-Herald newspaper reported on Friday. Kansas' Jerry Moran is also undecided. No Democrats support the bill. To pass Graham-Cassidy, the Republicans need at least 50 votes in the 100-seat Senate, which they control 52-48, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a potential tie-breaking vote. The insurance industry, hospitals, medical advocacy groups such as the American Medical Association, American Heart Association and American Cancer Society, the AARP advocacy group for the elderly and consumer activists oppose the bill. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, estimated the bill would cause more than 30 million people to lose insurance.

US Senator McCain opposes Obamacare repeal bill in possible fatal blow

South Korea approved a plan on Thursday to send $8 million worth of aid to North Korea, as China warned the crisis on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and the war of words between Pyongyang and Washington continued.

North Korea&#39;s foreign minister likened US President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;to a &quot;barking dog&quot; on Thursday, after&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;warned he would &quot;totally destroy&quot; the North if it threatened the United States and its allies.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the situation on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and could not be allowed to spin out of control.

&quot;We call on all parties to be calmer than calm and not let the situation escalate out of control,&quot; Wang said, according to a report from the state-run China News Service on Thursday.

Meeting separately with his South Korean counterpart, Kang Kyung-wha, Wang reiterated a call for South Korea to remove the US-built THAAD anti-missile system, which China says is a threat to its own security.

&quot;China hopes South Korea will make efforts to reduce tension,&quot; a report on China&#39;s official Xinhua news agency quoted Wang as saying.

The decision to send aid to North Korea was not popular in South Korea, hitting President Moon Jae-in&#39;s approval rating. It also raised concerns in Japan and the United States and followed new UN sanctions against North Korea over its sixth nuclear test earlier this month.

The South&#39;s Unification Ministry said its aid policy remained unaffected by geopolitical tensions with the North. The exact timing of when the aid would be sent, as well as its size, would be confirmed later, the ministry said in a statement.

The South said it aimed to send $4.5 million worth of nutritional products for children and pregnant women through the World Food Programme and $3.5 million worth of vaccines and medicinal treatments through UNICEF.

&quot;We have consistently said we would pursue humanitarian aid for North Korea in consideration of the poor conditions children and pregnant women are in there, apart from political issues,&quot; said Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon.

UNICEF&#39;s regional director for East Asia and the Pacific Karin Hulshof said in a statement before the decision the problems North Korean children face &quot;are all too real&quot;.

&quot;Today, we estimate that around 200,000 children are affected by acute malnutrition, heightening their risk of death and increasing rates of stunting,&quot; Hulshof said.

&quot;Food and essential medicines and equipment to treat young children are in short supply,&quot; she said.

The last time the South had sent aid to the North was in December 2015 through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) under ex-president Park Geun-hye.

Dog Barking

South Korea&#39;s efforts aimed at fresh aid for North Korea dragged down Moon&#39;s approval rating. Realmeter, a South Korean polling organisation, said on Thursday Moon&#39;s approval rating stood at 65.7 per cent, weakening for a fourth straight month.

Although the approval rate is still high, those surveyed said Moon had fallen out of favour due to North Korea&#39;s continued provocations and the government&#39;s decision to consider sending aid to North Korea, Realmeter said.

Moon will meet Japan&#39;s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;later on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where North Korea was expected to be the core agenda item.

In an address on Tuesday,&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;escalated his standoff with North Korea over its nuclear challenge, threatening to &quot;totally destroy&quot; the country of 26 million people if the North threatened the United States and its allies.

Trump&nbsp;also mocked its leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him a &quot;rocket man&quot;.

North Korea&#39;s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho called&nbsp;Trump&#39;s comments &quot;the sound of a dog barking&quot;.

&quot;There is a saying that goes: &#39;Even when dogs bark, the parade goes on&#39;,&quot; Ri said in televised remarks to reporters in front of a hotel near the U.N. headquarters in New York.

&quot;If (Trump) was thinking about surprising us with dog-barking sounds then he is clearly dreaming,&quot; he said.

Asked by reporters what he thought of&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un &quot;rocket man&quot;, Ri quipped: &quot;I feel sorry for his aides.&quot;

North Korea conducted its sixth and largest nuclear test on Sept. 3 and has launched numerous missiles this year, including two intercontinental ballistic missiles and two other rockets that flew over Japan.

Such provocations have sparked strong disapproval from the international community, especially from the United States and Japan.

North Korea's foreign minister likened US President Donald?Trump?to a 'barking dog' on Thursday, after?Trump?warned he would 'totally destroy' the North if it threatened the United States and its allies

South Korea approved a plan on Thursday to send $8 million worth of aid to North Korea, as China warned the crisis on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and the war of words between Pyongyang and Washington continued. North Korea's foreign minister likened US President Donald Trump to a "barking dog" on Thursday, after Trump warned he would "totally destroy" the North if it threatened the United States and its allies. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the situation on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and could not be allowed to spin out of control. "We call on all parties to be calmer than calm and not let the situation escalate out of control," Wang said, according to a report from the state-run China News Service on Thursday. Meeting separately with his South Korean counterpart, Kang Kyung-wha, Wang reiterated a call for South Korea to remove the US-built THAAD anti-missile system, which China says is a threat to its own security. "China hopes South Korea will make efforts to reduce tension," a report on China's official Xinhua news agency quoted Wang as saying. The decision to send aid to North Korea was not popular in South Korea, hitting President Moon Jae-in's approval rating. It also raised concerns in Japan and the United States and followed new UN sanctions against North Korea over its sixth nuclear test earlier this month. The South's Unification Ministry said its aid policy remained unaffected by geopolitical tensions with the North. The exact timing of when the aid would be sent, as well as its size, would be confirmed later, the ministry said in a statement. The South said it aimed to send $4.5 million worth of nutritional products for children and pregnant women through the World Food Programme and $3.5 million worth of vaccines and medicinal treatments through UNICEF. "We have consistently said we would pursue humanitarian aid for North Korea in consideration of the poor conditions children and pregnant women are in there, apart from political issues," said Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon. UNICEF's regional director for East Asia and the Pacific Karin Hulshof said in a statement before the decision the problems North Korean children face "are all too real". "Today, we estimate that around 200,000 children are affected by acute malnutrition, heightening their risk of death and increasing rates of stunting," Hulshof said. "Food and essential medicines and equipment to treat young children are in short supply," she said. The last time the South had sent aid to the North was in December 2015 through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) under ex-president Park Geun-hye. Dog Barking South Korea's efforts aimed at fresh aid for North Korea dragged down Moon's approval rating. Realmeter, a South Korean polling organisation, said on Thursday Moon's approval rating stood at 65.7 per cent, weakening for a fourth straight month. Although the approval rate is still high, those surveyed said Moon had fallen out of favour due to North Korea's continued provocations and the government's decision to consider sending aid to North Korea, Realmeter said. Moon will meet Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Trump later on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where North Korea was expected to be the core agenda item. In an address on Tuesday, Trump escalated his standoff with North Korea over its nuclear challenge, threatening to "totally destroy" the country of 26 million people if the North threatened the United States and its allies. Trump also mocked its leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him a "rocket man". North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho called Trump's comments "the sound of a dog barking". "There is a saying that goes: 'Even when dogs bark, the parade goes on'," Ri said in televised remarks to reporters in front of a hotel near the U.N. headquarters in New York. "If (Trump) was thinking about surprising us with dog-barking sounds then he is clearly dreaming," he said. Asked by reporters what he thought of Trump calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "rocket man", Ri quipped: "I feel sorry for his aides." North Korea conducted its sixth and largest nuclear test on Sept. 3 and has launched numerous missiles this year, including two intercontinental ballistic missiles and two other rockets that flew over Japan. Such provocations have sparked strong disapproval from the international community, especially from the United States and Japan.

North Korea shrugs off Trump as 'barking dog'

It is a short distance from Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue to the United Nations headquarters on First Avenue, but these are different worlds. Donald Trump&rsquo;s native world is one of unilateralism and competition, with more than a hint of bravado and aggression. The U.N.&lsquo;s world is one of multilateralism and cooperation, with a heavy dose of diplomacy and collaboration.

Those two worlds met when Trump gave his first speech to the U.N. as America&rsquo;s president. And the nationalism and pragmatism of the relatively recently inaugurated leader of the U.S., <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-trump-victory-make-angela-merkel-leader-of-the-free-world-69017">if no longer the free world</a>, collided with the cosmopolitan, enduringly optimistic, if often weary,&nbsp;leadership of the U.N. Not surprisingly, it starkly contrasted with <a href="http://time.com/4501910/president-obama-united-nations-speech-transcript/">Barack Obama&rsquo;s final speech to the U.N.</a> a year ago.

&#39;It&rsquo;s complicated&rsquo;

Since his inauguration, Donald Trump has conceded on several occasions that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/opinions/trump-foreign-policy-ghitis-opinion/index.html">foreign policy is &ldquo;complicated.</a>&rdquo; And his speech at the U.N. reinforced that fact. He attempted to bridge an uncomfortable divide between the isolationism and muscular foreign policy embraced by much of his political base and the inescapable need to cooperate with other countries in order to tackle a series of foreign policy problems that even the most powerful of states cannot address alone. My initial impression as a student of international relations is that he largely failed to reconcile that tension.

Trump&rsquo;s inaugural presidential address was more memorable for his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/donald-trumps-full-inauguration-speech-transcript-annotated/">reference to carnage</a> than an appeal to inspirational values. And, likewise, his first U.N. speech will probably be remembered more for his threats against North Korea and his reference to the decimation of the U.S. middle class than a few desultory utterances in which he commended the United Nations for its humanitarian efforts.

Straddling two constituencies

Unsurprisingly, Trump&rsquo;s commentary was broad-ranging and inchoate. In again invoking the concept of &ldquo;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-to-deliver-un-speech-focused-on-principled-realism/">principled realism</a>,&rdquo; he tried to straddle, and to please, both his base and the audience in the room. But just like his wavering recent comments about events in Charlottesville or the fate of the &ldquo;Dreamers&rdquo; of DACA, his ambivalence on the future relationship between the United States and the United Nations will likely leave neither his supporters or his global audience satisfied.

So, against this background, what were the lessons gleaned from Trump&rsquo;s speech?

Here are five key points:

We are the world?

For the last three decades, every student who takes a university course in international relations has been taught two things. The first is that the countries of the world are becoming more interdependent. The second is that the United Nations is one of the mechanisms that can be used to address issues that require a collective response, like climate change or growing inequality. Trump rejected that formulation. In his speech, he argued that the United Nations should be built on the basis of sovereign, strong and independent states fed by patriotism and nationalism &ndash; not cosmopolitanism. States should be left alone unless they threaten external security or, Trump suggested eccentrically, they abrogate human rights &ndash; singularly referring to Venezuela.

Throwback to W

Rogue states, or &ldquo;regimes,&rdquo; are back in fashion. The term, like the &ldquo;Axis of Evil,&rdquo; was introduced by George W. Bush&rsquo;s administration. Then, it principally referred to Iran, North Korea and Iraq, and was used to justify an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. That language disappeared during the Obama administration, in favor of a focus on strategic patience and diplomacy. Trump&rsquo;s rejection of Obama&rsquo;s foreign policy could have taken him off in several directions. But in this instance, he has returned to Bush&rsquo;s.

A line to remember

But Bush&rsquo;s foray didn&rsquo;t end well. He used the term &ndash; and the threat those countries reputedly posed to international stability &ndash; to justify a long, bloody and costly war in Iraq that ultimately destabilized the Middle East. The consequences of Trump&rsquo;s return to that language could prove catastrophic on the Korean Peninsula. Never before can I recall an American president threatening to &ldquo;totally destroy&rdquo; another country like North Korea, as Trump did while standing at a lectern of an organization whose core mission is dedicated to peace. That, I suspect, will be the line from his speech that will be longest remembered, regardless of whether war actually breaks out.

Looking out for number one

Paradoxically, according to Trump, in pursuing its own narrow, short-term self-interest on security and trade, the United States will remain a &ldquo;model&rdquo; for the rest of the world. Again, this claim upends conventional American wisdom.

Attempts to enhance America&rsquo;s global reputation for the last seven decades have been built on its efforts to cultivate at least an image of <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10271.html">enlightened self-interest.</a> This has entailed promoting global stability, trade and democracy. Taking this long-term view has been at a cost to American taxpayers, workers and even American lives in a series of wars. American presidents have routinely justified this sacrifice by calling the U.S. &ldquo;a model&rdquo; from which the world has ultimately benefited. Until now, none has justified selfishness as a virtue to the rest of the world. &ldquo;As President of the United States, I will always put America first just like you, the leaders of your countries, will always, and should always, put your countries first,&rdquo; <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech-2017-full-text-transcript-242879">proclaimed Trump.</a> It was a line reminiscent of Gordon Gecko&rsquo;s famous speech in the movie Wall Street, that &ldquo;greed is good.&rdquo;

Ignoring the needs of others

Economic and national security may be in, but enhancing economic and social development, addressing global inequality and combating climate change are certainly out.

The irony is inescapable: Two more hurricanes were threatening America&rsquo;s shores as Trump spoke. Seemingly oblivious to that fact, he completely ignored two of the greatest interrelated challenges facing humanity in a building whose central mission is to protect the species: how to feed the world&rsquo;s population while ensuring all of our children actually remain alive so that they can enjoy that meal. America First, he clearly implied, entails the right of the American middle class to drive to the mall and have enough money to spend on U.S. manufactured products when it gets there. But, on this occasion, the possibility that they may have to drive through a hurricane, flood, forest fire or smog to get there was not recognized by Trump as a major problem. And on questions of economic, political or social development? The nearest he got was a reference to refugees: Wars should cease so that they can return to their homes. It&rsquo;s cheaper that way. The president is probably unacquainted with the fact that a large proportion of the world&rsquo;s potential <a href="https://caribbeantradelaw.com/2017/01/30/hr4939-us-caribbean-strategic-engagement-act-of-2016-key-points-to-note/">environmental refugees</a> live in the Caribbean, and when the sea rises I suspect they will be heading in boats towards Florida, if not Mar-a-Lago, with no home to return to.

So what&rsquo;s the bottom line?

First, principled realism is a nice term if you are trying to appear coherent. But its principle components &ndash; of isolationism and engagement &ndash; are <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100158520">inherently contradictory</a>. Cobbling them together should lead us to expect contradiction and equivocation rather than be surprised by it.

Second, we learned once again that Trump looks longingly backwards rather than forwards. His speech, when dispassionately analyzed, would have seemed more befitting if delivered in 1917 rather than 2017.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84328/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />And finally, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/trump-un-speech-world-leaders-react/index.html">the lukewarm applause Trump received</a> &ndash; both when criticizing Iran and at the conclusion of his speech &ndash; suggests that, with few exceptions, the world&rsquo;s leaders share the sentiment held by a large portion of the American electorate: that the next three years and four months are going <a href="https://www.vox.com/2017/6/12/15781752/donald-trump-eternity-time-perception">to feel like an eternity</a>.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" nofollow="" rel="">The Conversation</a>.The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-speaks-at-the-un-5-takeaways-84328" nofollow="" rel="">original article</a>.

In his first speech after becoming President of United States, Donald Trump threatened North Korea with total destruction.

It is a short distance from Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue to the United Nations headquarters on First Avenue, but these are different worlds. Donald Trump’s native world is one of unilateralism and competition, with more than a hint of bravado and aggression. The U.N.‘s world is one of multilateralism and cooperation, with a heavy dose of diplomacy and collaboration. Those two worlds met when Trump gave his first speech to the U.N. as America’s president. And the nationalism and pragmatism of the relatively recently inaugurated leader of the U.S., if no longer the free world, collided with the cosmopolitan, enduringly optimistic, if often weary, leadership of the U.N. Not surprisingly, it starkly contrasted with Barack Obama’s final speech to the U.N. a year ago. 'It’s complicated’ Since his inauguration, Donald Trump has conceded on several occasions that foreign policy is “complicated.” And his speech at the U.N. reinforced that fact. He attempted to bridge an uncomfortable divide between the isolationism and muscular foreign policy embraced by much of his political base and the inescapable need to cooperate with other countries in order to tackle a series of foreign policy problems that even the most powerful of states cannot address alone. My initial impression as a student of international relations is that he largely failed to reconcile that tension. Trump’s inaugural presidential address was more memorable for his reference to carnage than an appeal to inspirational values. And, likewise, his first U.N. speech will probably be remembered more for his threats against North Korea and his reference to the decimation of the U.S. middle class than a few desultory utterances in which he commended the United Nations for its humanitarian efforts. Straddling two constituencies Unsurprisingly, Trump’s commentary was broad-ranging and inchoate. In again invoking the concept of “principled realism,” he tried to straddle, and to please, both his base and the audience in the room. But just like his wavering recent comments about events in Charlottesville or the fate of the “Dreamers” of DACA, his ambivalence on the future relationship between the United States and the United Nations will likely leave neither his supporters or his global audience satisfied. So, against this background, what were the lessons gleaned from Trump’s speech? Here are five key points: We are the world? For the last three decades, every student who takes a university course in international relations has been taught two things. The first is that the countries of the world are becoming more interdependent. The second is that the United Nations is one of the mechanisms that can be used to address issues that require a collective response, like climate change or growing inequality. Trump rejected that formulation. In his speech, he argued that the United Nations should be built on the basis of sovereign, strong and independent states fed by patriotism and nationalism – not cosmopolitanism. States should be left alone unless they threaten external security or, Trump suggested eccentrically, they abrogate human rights – singularly referring to Venezuela. Throwback to W Rogue states, or “regimes,” are back in fashion. The term, like the “Axis of Evil,” was introduced by George W. Bush’s administration. Then, it principally referred to Iran, North Korea and Iraq, and was used to justify an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. That language disappeared during the Obama administration, in favor of a focus on strategic patience and diplomacy. Trump’s rejection of Obama’s foreign policy could have taken him off in several directions. But in this instance, he has returned to Bush’s. A line to remember But Bush’s foray didn’t end well. He used the term – and the threat those countries reputedly posed to international stability – to justify a long, bloody and costly war in Iraq that ultimately destabilized the Middle East. The consequences of Trump’s return to that language could prove catastrophic on the Korean Peninsula. Never before can I recall an American president threatening to “totally destroy” another country like North Korea, as Trump did while standing at a lectern of an organization whose core mission is dedicated to peace. That, I suspect, will be the line from his speech that will be longest remembered, regardless of whether war actually breaks out. Looking out for number one Paradoxically, according to Trump, in pursuing its own narrow, short-term self-interest on security and trade, the United States will remain a “model” for the rest of the world. Again, this claim upends conventional American wisdom. Attempts to enhance America’s global reputation for the last seven decades have been built on its efforts to cultivate at least an image of enlightened self-interest. This has entailed promoting global stability, trade and democracy. Taking this long-term view has been at a cost to American taxpayers, workers and even American lives in a series of wars. American presidents have routinely justified this sacrifice by calling the U.S. “a model” from which the world has ultimately benefited. Until now, none has justified selfishness as a virtue to the rest of the world. “As President of the United States, I will always put America first just like you, the leaders of your countries, will always, and should always, put your countries first,” proclaimed Trump. It was a line reminiscent of Gordon Gecko’s famous speech in the movie Wall Street, that “greed is good.” Ignoring the needs of others Economic and national security may be in, but enhancing economic and social development, addressing global inequality and combating climate change are certainly out. The irony is inescapable: Two more hurricanes were threatening America’s shores as Trump spoke. Seemingly oblivious to that fact, he completely ignored two of the greatest interrelated challenges facing humanity in a building whose central mission is to protect the species: how to feed the world’s population while ensuring all of our children actually remain alive so that they can enjoy that meal. America First, he clearly implied, entails the right of the American middle class to drive to the mall and have enough money to spend on U.S. manufactured products when it gets there. But, on this occasion, the possibility that they may have to drive through a hurricane, flood, forest fire or smog to get there was not recognized by Trump as a major problem. And on questions of economic, political or social development? The nearest he got was a reference to refugees: Wars should cease so that they can return to their homes. It’s cheaper that way. The president is probably unacquainted with the fact that a large proportion of the world’s potential environmental refugees live in the Caribbean, and when the sea rises I suspect they will be heading in boats towards Florida, if not Mar-a-Lago, with no home to return to. So what’s the bottom line? First, principled realism is a nice term if you are trying to appear coherent. But its principle components – of isolationism and engagement – are inherently contradictory. Cobbling them together should lead us to expect contradiction and equivocation rather than be surprised by it. Second, we learned once again that Trump looks longingly backwards rather than forwards. His speech, when dispassionately analyzed, would have seemed more befitting if delivered in 1917 rather than 2017. And finally, the lukewarm applause Trump received – both when criticizing Iran and at the conclusion of his speech – suggests that, with few exceptions, the world’s leaders share the sentiment held by a large portion of the American electorate: that the next three years and four months are going to feel like an eternity. This article was originally published on The Conversation.The Conversation. Read the original article.

Trump's first speech in the UN goes against the values of the organisation

Bangladesh&nbsp;Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said she spoke to U.S. President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;on Monday about Rohingya Muslims flooding into her country&nbsp;fromMyanmar, but she&nbsp;expects&nbsp;no&nbsp;help&nbsp;from&nbsp;him as he has made clear how he feels about&nbsp;refugees.

As&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;left an event he hosted at the United Nations on reforming the world body, Hasina said she stopped him for a few minutes.

&quot;He just asked how is&nbsp;Bangladesh? I said &#39;it&#39;s doing very well, but the only problem that we have is the&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;from&nbsp;Myanmar&#39;,&quot; Hasina told Reuters in an interview. &quot;But he didn&#39;t make any comment about&nbsp;refugees.&quot;

A&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;military response to insurgent attacks last month in the country&#39;s Rakhine state sent more than 410,000 Rohingya Muslims&nbsp;fleeing&nbsp;to neighboring&nbsp;Bangladesh, escaping what the United Nations has branded as ethnic cleansing.

The&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;government&nbsp;says&nbsp;about 400 people have been killed in the fighting.

Hasina, who is due to address the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, said&nbsp;Trump&#39;s stance on&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;was clear, so it was not worth asking him for&nbsp;help&nbsp;with the Rohingya Muslim&nbsp;refugees.

&quot;Already America declared that they will not allow any&nbsp;refugees,&quot; she said. &quot;What I can expectfrom&nbsp;them, and especially (the) president. He already declared his mind ... so why I should ask?&quot;

&quot;Bangladesh&nbsp;is not a rich country ... but if we can feed 160 million people, another 500 or 700,000 people, we can do it.&quot;

A senior White House official was unaware of the exchange but said&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;was deeply interested in the subject and that &quot;he would definitely engage if it were brought up.&quot;

Shortly after taking office in January,&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;tried to put a 120-day halt on the U.S. refugee program, bar Syrian&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;indefinitely and impose a 90-day suspension on people&nbsp;from&nbsp;six predominantly Muslim countries.

&quot;The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!&quot;&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said on Twitter on Friday.

Trump&nbsp;says&nbsp;the move is needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures. There is a key Supreme Court hearing next month on the constitutionality of his executive order on the ban.

About a million Rohingya lived in Rakhine State until the recent violence. Most face travel restrictions and are denied citizenship in a country where many Buddhists regard them as illegal immigrants&nbsp;from&nbsp;Bangladesh.

Hasina said she wanted to see more international political pressure on&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;to allow the Rohingya to return.

&quot;(Myanmar&nbsp;leader Aung San Suu Kyi) should agree that these people belong to her country and that&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;is their country. They should take them back,&quot; she said. &quot;These people are suffering.&quot;

Nobel laureate Suu Kyi has faced a barrage of international criticism for not stopping the violence.Myanmar&nbsp;national security adviser Thaung Tun told Reuters on Monday that&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;would ensure those who left their homes could return, but there was &quot;a process we have to discuss.&quot;

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley urged the&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;government to end military operations, grant humanitarian access, and commit to aiding the safe return of civilians to their homes.

&quot;People are still at risk of being attacked or killed, humanitarian aid is not reaching the people who need it, and innocent civilians are still&nbsp;fleeing&nbsp;across the border to&nbsp;Bangladesh,&quot; Haley said after Britain hosted a meeting on the crisis in New York on Monday.

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state, Patrick Murphy, is due in&nbsp;Myanmar&nbsp;this week.

As?Trump?left an event he hosted at the United Nations on reforming the world body, Hasina said she stopped him for a few minutes.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said she spoke to U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday about Rohingya Muslims flooding into her country fromMyanmar, but she expects no help from him as he has made clear how he feels about refugees. As Trump left an event he hosted at the United Nations on reforming the world body, Hasina said she stopped him for a few minutes. "He just asked how is Bangladesh? I said 'it's doing very well, but the only problem that we have is the refugees from Myanmar'," Hasina told Reuters in an interview. "But he didn't make any comment about refugees." A Myanmar military response to insurgent attacks last month in the country's Rakhine state sent more than 410,000 Rohingya Muslims fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh, escaping what the United Nations has branded as ethnic cleansing. The Myanmar government says about 400 people have been killed in the fighting. Hasina, who is due to address the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, said Trump's stance on refugees was clear, so it was not worth asking him for help with the Rohingya Muslim refugees. "Already America declared that they will not allow any refugees," she said. "What I can expectfrom them, and especially (the) president. He already declared his mind ... so why I should ask?" "Bangladesh is not a rich country ... but if we can feed 160 million people, another 500 or 700,000 people, we can do it." A senior White House official was unaware of the exchange but said Trump was deeply interested in the subject and that "he would definitely engage if it were brought up." Shortly after taking office in January, Trump tried to put a 120-day halt on the U.S. refugee program, bar Syrian refugees indefinitely and impose a 90-day suspension on people from six predominantly Muslim countries. "The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!" Trump said on Twitter on Friday. Trump says the move is needed to prevent terrorist attacks and allow the government to put in place more stringent vetting procedures. There is a key Supreme Court hearing next month on the constitutionality of his executive order on the ban. About a million Rohingya lived in Rakhine State until the recent violence. Most face travel restrictions and are denied citizenship in a country where many Buddhists regard them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Hasina said she wanted to see more international political pressure on Myanmar to allow the Rohingya to return. "(Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi) should agree that these people belong to her country and that Myanmar is their country. They should take them back," she said. "These people are suffering." Nobel laureate Suu Kyi has faced a barrage of international criticism for not stopping the violence.Myanmar national security adviser Thaung Tun told Reuters on Monday that Myanmar would ensure those who left their homes could return, but there was "a process we have to discuss." U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley urged the Myanmar government to end military operations, grant humanitarian access, and commit to aiding the safe return of civilians to their homes. "People are still at risk of being attacked or killed, humanitarian aid is not reaching the people who need it, and innocent civilians are still fleeing across the border to Bangladesh," Haley said after Britain hosted a meeting on the crisis in New York on Monday. A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state, Patrick Murphy, is due in Myanmar this week.

Bangladesh PM says expects no help from Trump on refugees fleeing Myanmar

US President Donald Trump makes his debut at the United Nations on Monday, with an address on UN reform as a week of intense diplomacy kicks off, dominated by worries about North Korea, Iran and Myanmar.

Trump, who once disparaged the world body as a &quot;club&quot; for &quot;people to get together, talk and have a good time,&quot; will lay out his views on how to improve the United Nations a day before he makes his first address to the General Assembly.

About 130 world leaders are attending this year&#39;s global gathering, but all eyes will be on Trump, whose &quot;America First&quot; agenda has alarmed both allies and foes.

The UN&#39;s number one financial backer, the United States has threatened deep cuts to UN funding that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said would create an &quot;unsolvable problem&quot; for the world body.

Guterres, who is pushing for an overhaul of the UN bureaucracy, will also address the event at which leaders will sign a pledge of support for reform.

France and Russia have reacted coolly to the US initiative, amid concerns that the US administration is focused more on cost-cutting than improving the UN&#39;s performance.

US Ambassador Nikki Haley was a driving force behind a $600-million-dollar cut to the UN peacekeeping budget this year.

Haley on Friday pointed to the more than 120 countries that back the US-drafted political declaration on UN reform as a &quot;miraculous number,&quot; showing there is support for a &quot;massive reform package&quot; led by Guterres.

Differences over Iran, North Korea&nbsp;

On Monday, Trump will hold talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, who will also be making his maiden address at the General Assembly on Tuesday, and with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Both Macron and Netanyahu are expected to raise the future of the Iran nuclear agreement, with the French leader making a strong case for keeping it alive and the Israeli prime minister pushing for its demise.

Trump will also have a working dinner with Latin American leaders that will touch on the crisis in Venezuela.

North Korea&#39;s nuclear and missile tests will be in the spotlight with foreign ministers set to discuss enforcing sanctions against Pyongyang during a Security Council meeting on non-proliferation on Thursday.

Also on Thursday, Trump will be holding talks with Japanese and South Korean leaders who have backed the US drive to ratchet up sanctions on North Korea.

The council last week imposed a new raft of measures such as a ban on export textiles and a cap on oil shipments to pile pressure on Pyongyang to come to the table and negotiate an end to its nuclear and missile programs.

Russia and China, however, are calling for diplomatic talks with North Korea while warning that a military option as suggested by the United States would have catastrophic consequences.

Myanmar&nbsp;

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will host a meeting on the military campaign in Myanmar which the United Nations has described as &quot;ethnic cleansing&quot; after more than 400,000 Rohingya Muslims were forced to flee.

The closed-door meeting will be attended by a representative from Myanmar and by foreign ministers from &quot;a range of countries with a strong interest in seeing an end to the violence there,&quot; a British diplomat said.

Ahead of the opening of the General Assembly, UN member-states will discuss the aftermath of Hurricane Irma that devastated parts of the United States and the Caribbean.&nbsp;

The hurricane disaster offers a reminder of the destructive force of nature as leaders set their sights on implementing the Paris agreement on climate change despite the US withdrawal from the deal.

Trump, who once disparaged the world body as a "club" for "people to get together, talk and have a good time," will lay out his views on how to improve the United Nations a day before he makes his first address to the General Assembly.

US President Donald Trump makes his debut at the United Nations on Monday, with an address on UN reform as a week of intense diplomacy kicks off, dominated by worries about North Korea, Iran and Myanmar. Trump, who once disparaged the world body as a "club" for "people to get together, talk and have a good time," will lay out his views on how to improve the United Nations a day before he makes his first address to the General Assembly. About 130 world leaders are attending this year's global gathering, but all eyes will be on Trump, whose "America First" agenda has alarmed both allies and foes. The UN's number one financial backer, the United States has threatened deep cuts to UN funding that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said would create an "unsolvable problem" for the world body. Guterres, who is pushing for an overhaul of the UN bureaucracy, will also address the event at which leaders will sign a pledge of support for reform. France and Russia have reacted coolly to the US initiative, amid concerns that the US administration is focused more on cost-cutting than improving the UN's performance. US Ambassador Nikki Haley was a driving force behind a $600-million-dollar cut to the UN peacekeeping budget this year. Haley on Friday pointed to the more than 120 countries that back the US-drafted political declaration on UN reform as a "miraculous number," showing there is support for a "massive reform package" led by Guterres. Differences over Iran, North Korea On Monday, Trump will hold talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, who will also be making his maiden address at the General Assembly on Tuesday, and with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Both Macron and Netanyahu are expected to raise the future of the Iran nuclear agreement, with the French leader making a strong case for keeping it alive and the Israeli prime minister pushing for its demise. Trump will also have a working dinner with Latin American leaders that will touch on the crisis in Venezuela. North Korea's nuclear and missile tests will be in the spotlight with foreign ministers set to discuss enforcing sanctions against Pyongyang during a Security Council meeting on non-proliferation on Thursday. Also on Thursday, Trump will be holding talks with Japanese and South Korean leaders who have backed the US drive to ratchet up sanctions on North Korea. The council last week imposed a new raft of measures such as a ban on export textiles and a cap on oil shipments to pile pressure on Pyongyang to come to the table and negotiate an end to its nuclear and missile programs. Russia and China, however, are calling for diplomatic talks with North Korea while warning that a military option as suggested by the United States would have catastrophic consequences. Myanmar British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will host a meeting on the military campaign in Myanmar which the United Nations has described as "ethnic cleansing" after more than 400,000 Rohingya Muslims were forced to flee. The closed-door meeting will be attended by a representative from Myanmar and by foreign ministers from "a range of countries with a strong interest in seeing an end to the violence there," a British diplomat said. Ahead of the opening of the General Assembly, UN member-states will discuss the aftermath of Hurricane Irma that devastated parts of the United States and the Caribbean. The hurricane disaster offers a reminder of the destructive force of nature as leaders set their sights on implementing the Paris agreement on climate change despite the US withdrawal from the deal.

Trump pushes UN reform as world leaders gather for crisis talks

&nbsp;

Donald Trump let loose on Twitter Sunday with a shoot-from-the-hip volley of posts referring to North Korea&#39;s leader Kim Jong-Un as &quot;Rocket Man&quot; -- and picturing himself taking out Hillary Clinton with a golf ball.

The US leader spoke Saturday night with South Korea&#39;s President Moon Jae-In, pledging joint &quot;steps to strengthen deterrence and defense capabilities and to maximise economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea,&quot; according to the White House.

Trump&#39;s own account of the conversation, which kicked off an unbridled salvo of early morning tweets, struck a less diplomatic tone.

&quot;I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad!&quot; the president wrote to his 38 million followers. 
&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/909384837018112000">September 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Thank you! <a href="https://t.co/vs4MNwXtei">https://t.co/vs4MNwXtei</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/909385782275788800">September 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Only true Americans can see that president Trump is making America great. He&#39;s the only person who can! Haters are jealous of his success ????
&mdash; lana del fenty (@glamourizes) <a href="https://twitter.com/glamourizes/status/909381635249860610">September 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Donald Trump&#39;s amazing golf swing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CrookedHillary?src=hash">#CrookedHillary</a> <a href="https://t.co/vKhxxFCBV1">pic.twitter.com/vKhxxFCBV1</a>
&mdash; Mike (@Fuctupmind) <a href="https://twitter.com/Fuctupmind/status/908163011793358848">September 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

He then launched into half a dozen retweets of internet memes celebrating his Make America Great Again campaign theme -- topping it off with a GIF montage of himself taking a swing at a golf ball and knocking out his erstwhile Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Trump is spending the weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey as he prepares to address the UN General Assembly next week.

His latest bout of unbridled tweeting triggered a storm of online reaction -- which he slyly acknowledged with a retweet of a Bloomberg article: &quot;What Is Trump worth to Twitter? One analyst estimates $2 billion.&quot;

Trump shot a volley of posts on Twitter referring to North Korea's leader Kim Jong-Un as 'Rocket Man' -- and picturing himself taking out Hillary Clinton with a golf ball

Donald Trump let loose on Twitter Sunday with a shoot-from-the-hip volley of posts referring to North Korea's leader Kim Jong-Un as "Rocket Man" -- and picturing himself taking out Hillary Clinton with a golf ball. The US leader spoke Saturday night with South Korea's President Moon Jae-In, pledging joint "steps to strengthen deterrence and defense capabilities and to maximise economic and diplomatic pressure on North Korea," according to the White House. Trump's own account of the conversation, which kicked off an unbridled salvo of early morning tweets, struck a less diplomatic tone. "I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad!" the president wrote to his 38 million followers. I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 17, 2017 × Thank you! https://t.co/vs4MNwXtei — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 17, 2017 × Only true Americans can see that president Trump is making America great. He's the only person who can! Haters are jealous of his success ???? — lana del fenty (@glamourizes) September 17, 2017 × Donald Trump's amazing golf swing #CrookedHillary pic.twitter.com/vKhxxFCBV1 — Mike (@Fuctupmind) September 14, 2017 × He then launched into half a dozen retweets of internet memes celebrating his Make America Great Again campaign theme -- topping it off with a GIF montage of himself taking a swing at a golf ball and knocking out his erstwhile Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Trump is spending the weekend at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey as he prepares to address the UN General Assembly next week. His latest bout of unbridled tweeting triggered a storm of online reaction -- which he slyly acknowledged with a retweet of a Bloomberg article: "What Is Trump worth to Twitter? One analyst estimates $2 billion."

Trump tweets on 'Rocket Man' Kim Jong, 'Crooked Hillary'

United States President Donald Trump signed a Congressional resolution condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other similar hate groups.

In a statement, Trump said he was &quot;pleased to sign&quot;&nbsp;the resolution.

&quot;As Americans, we condemn the recent violence in Charlottesville and oppose hatred, bigotry, and racism in all forms,&quot; said Trump.

The US Congress unanimously passed a resolution &quot;rejecting white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups&quot; earlier this week.

Trump had to face heavy criticism after his equivocal stand on the August violence that erupted in Charlottesville after a white supremacist plowed his vehicle into a crowd of&nbsp;counter-protesters killing one during a rally by&nbsp;far-right extremists.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The US Congress unanimously passed a resolution 'rejecting white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups' earlier this week

United States President Donald Trump signed a Congressional resolution condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other similar hate groups. In a statement, Trump said he was "pleased to sign" the resolution. "As Americans, we condemn the recent violence in Charlottesville and oppose hatred, bigotry, and racism in all forms," said Trump. The US Congress unanimously passed a resolution "rejecting white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups" earlier this week. Trump had to face heavy criticism after his equivocal stand on the August violence that erupted in Charlottesville after a white supremacist plowed his vehicle into a crowd of counter-protesters killing one during a rally by far-right extremists.

Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacists, other hate groups

British Prime Minister Theresa May has frowned upon US President Donald Trump&#39;s tweet on the explosion on a train in London that injured 22 people on Friday.

Asked to comment on President Trump&#39;s tweet that the culprits behind the explosion were in&nbsp;&quot;in the sights of Scotland Yard,&quot; PM May said she did not think it was ever helpful for anyone to comment on an ongoing investigation.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908642277987356673">September 15, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner.The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off &amp; use better!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908643633901039617">September 15, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

 
&nbsp;&quot;I never think it&#39;s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation,&quot; Theresa May said.

The British PM added that the police and security services were doing all they could to identify those responsible for the &quot;cowardly attack&quot;.

Trump later told the US press that he was going to call the Prime Minister right away.

&quot;No, it&#39;s a terrible thing. It just keeps going and going. And, we have to be very smart. We have to be very, very tough, which, perhaps, we&#39;re not nearly tough enough. But that is just an absolutely terrible thing. In fact, I am going to call Prime Minister right now,&quot; the US President said.

At least 22 people were injured after a home-made bomb partially exploded on a packed commuter train heading into London, engulfing a carriage in flames.

&nbsp;

Trumps tweeted that those responsible for the explosion were 'in the sights of Scotland Yard'

British Prime Minister Theresa May has frowned upon US President Donald Trump's tweet on the explosion on a train in London that injured 22 people on Friday. Asked to comment on President Trump's tweet that the culprits behind the explosion were in "in the sights of Scotland Yard," PM May said she did not think it was ever helpful for anyone to comment on an ongoing investigation. Another attack in London by a loser terrorist.These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard. Must be proactive! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2017 × Loser terrorists must be dealt with in a much tougher manner.The internet is their main recruitment tool which we must cut off & use better! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 15, 2017 × "I never think it's helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation," Theresa May said. The British PM added that the police and security services were doing all they could to identify those responsible for the "cowardly attack". Trump later told the US press that he was going to call the Prime Minister right away. "No, it's a terrible thing. It just keeps going and going. And, we have to be very smart. We have to be very, very tough, which, perhaps, we're not nearly tough enough. But that is just an absolutely terrible thing. In fact, I am going to call Prime Minister right now," the US President said. At least 22 people were injured after a home-made bomb partially exploded on a packed commuter train heading into London, engulfing a carriage in flames.

Theresa May says Trump tweet on London explosion not helpful

A student shot and killed another student and wounded three others on Wednesday&nbsp;at a high school in the northwestern state of Washington before being disarmed, authorities said.

The shooting took place at Freeman High School in Spokane County, Washington state, 285 miles (460 kilometers) from Seattle, where witnesses described a scene of terror as the heavily armed shooter stalked the halls.

County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich told reporters the shooter was a student who was armed with more than one weapon, reportedly a rifle and a handgun.

&quot;He proceeded to take his weapons out. At that point, he attempted to fire one weapon and jammed,&quot; the sheriff said.

&quot;He went to his next weapon and a student walked up to him, engaged him, and that student was shot. That student did not survive,&quot; he said.

&quot;He then fired more shots around down the hallway, striking three more students and those students are in the hospital,&quot; he said.

Knezovich said the shooter was finally disabled by &quot;a member of the Freeman community,&quot; before police arrived on the scene.

The Spokesman-Review, a local news site, said the student was tackled by a school custodian.

&nbsp;&#39;A loud pop&#39;&nbsp;

It said the bloodshed began outside a biology class on the school&#39;s second floor.

&quot;I was putting my backpack away and I heard a loud pop, and I turned around. He was walking around,&quot; Elisa Vigil, a 14-year-old freshman, told the Spokesman-Review.

&quot;He had his pistol. His face was completely passive. He shot someone in the head. I crouched down in the hall. I looked up and a girl screamed, &#39;Help me, help me, help me.&#39; The hall was empty. She was shot in the back. I looked to my right, and there was a boy and he was shot in the head.&quot;

The three wounded students were all girls, it said. They were reported in stable condition at a local hospital.

Students told the news site the shooter was a sophomore who had ridden the school bus to classes with his weapons concealed in a duffel bag.

&quot;We need to understand what&#39;s going on in our society that students feel they need to take a weapon to solve the problems they are dealing with,&quot; Knezovich said.

&#39;Nice and funny and weird&#39;&nbsp;

Freeman High School has only 327 students, serving a small community near the city of Spokane.

Students said everyone knew each other, and some told local media they knew the shooter.

&quot;He was handing out a note to his friend saying he would do something stupid that could get him killed or in jail,&quot; one student told KXLY television. &quot;That was a few weeks ago.&quot;

Michael Harper, 15, told the Spokesman-Review that he was a good friend of the shooter.

&quot;He was weird,&quot; Harper was quoted as saying. &quot;And he loved the show Breaking Bad. He never really seemed like that person who had issues. He was always nice and funny and weird.&quot;

&nbsp;Anxious parents&nbsp;

A large contingent of police and firefighters responded to a call to their emergency line, and anxious parents began arriving at the school.

Cheryl Moser said her son, a freshman, called her from a second-floor classroom after hearing shots fired.

&quot;He called me and said, &#39;Mom, there are gunshots.&#39; He sounded so scared. I&#39;ve never heard him like that,&quot; Moser told the Spokesman-Review.

The state governor, Jay Inslee, said the shooting was &quot;heart-breaking.&quot;

&quot;As Spokane County officials continue their investigation to get the answers to the questions so many of us have during these unthinkable tragedies, the Washington State Patrol and all state agencies will do whatever we can to help provide support and comfort in the days and weeks to come,&quot; Inslee said.

An &quot;active shooter&quot; was arrested last Friday at a school in Columbus, Ohio, although no one was injured in that incident.

A year ago, an adolescent killed his father and then shot and wounded two children and a teacher at a South Carolina primary school.

According to the Gun Violence website, 253 mass shootings, defined as four or more people shot in a single incident, have been reported in the United States so far this year, including&nbsp;Wednesday&#39;s&nbsp;shooting in Washington state.

The shooting took place at Freeman High School in Spokane County, Washington state, 285 miles (460 kilometers) from Seattle, where witnesses described a scene of terror as the heavily armed shooter stalked the halls

A student shot and killed another student and wounded three others on Wednesday at a high school in the northwestern state of Washington before being disarmed, authorities said. The shooting took place at Freeman High School in Spokane County, Washington state, 285 miles (460 kilometers) from Seattle, where witnesses described a scene of terror as the heavily armed shooter stalked the halls. County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich told reporters the shooter was a student who was armed with more than one weapon, reportedly a rifle and a handgun. "He proceeded to take his weapons out. At that point, he attempted to fire one weapon and jammed," the sheriff said. "He went to his next weapon and a student walked up to him, engaged him, and that student was shot. That student did not survive," he said. "He then fired more shots around down the hallway, striking three more students and those students are in the hospital," he said. Knezovich said the shooter was finally disabled by "a member of the Freeman community," before police arrived on the scene. The Spokesman-Review, a local news site, said the student was tackled by a school custodian. 'A loud pop' It said the bloodshed began outside a biology class on the school's second floor. "I was putting my backpack away and I heard a loud pop, and I turned around. He was walking around," Elisa Vigil, a 14-year-old freshman, told the Spokesman-Review. "He had his pistol. His face was completely passive. He shot someone in the head. I crouched down in the hall. I looked up and a girl screamed, 'Help me, help me, help me.' The hall was empty. She was shot in the back. I looked to my right, and there was a boy and he was shot in the head." The three wounded students were all girls, it said. They were reported in stable condition at a local hospital. Students told the news site the shooter was a sophomore who had ridden the school bus to classes with his weapons concealed in a duffel bag. "We need to understand what's going on in our society that students feel they need to take a weapon to solve the problems they are dealing with," Knezovich said. 'Nice and funny and weird' Freeman High School has only 327 students, serving a small community near the city of Spokane. Students said everyone knew each other, and some told local media they knew the shooter. "He was handing out a note to his friend saying he would do something stupid that could get him killed or in jail," one student told KXLY television. "That was a few weeks ago." Michael Harper, 15, told the Spokesman-Review that he was a good friend of the shooter. "He was weird," Harper was quoted as saying. "And he loved the show Breaking Bad. He never really seemed like that person who had issues. He was always nice and funny and weird." Anxious parents A large contingent of police and firefighters responded to a call to their emergency line, and anxious parents began arriving at the school. Cheryl Moser said her son, a freshman, called her from a second-floor classroom after hearing shots fired. "He called me and said, 'Mom, there are gunshots.' He sounded so scared. I've never heard him like that," Moser told the Spokesman-Review. The state governor, Jay Inslee, said the shooting was "heart-breaking." "As Spokane County officials continue their investigation to get the answers to the questions so many of us have during these unthinkable tragedies, the Washington State Patrol and all state agencies will do whatever we can to help provide support and comfort in the days and weeks to come," Inslee said. An "active shooter" was arrested last Friday at a school in Columbus, Ohio, although no one was injured in that incident. A year ago, an adolescent killed his father and then shot and wounded two children and a teacher at a South Carolina primary school. According to the Gun Violence website, 253 mass shootings, defined as four or more people shot in a single incident, have been reported in the United States so far this year, including Wednesday's shooting in Washington state.

One dead, three wounded in northwest US school shooting

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday provided a temporary reprieve for President Trump&#39;s order blocking most refugees from entering the United States, putting on hold a lower court&#39;s ruling loosening the prohibition.

Kennedy&#39;s action gave the nine justices more time to consider the Justice Department&#39;s challenge filed on Monday to the lower court&#39;s decision allowing entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency. The full Supreme Court could act within days.

The Justice Department opted not to appeal another part of last Thursday&#39;s ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that related to Trump&#39;s ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations. The 9th Circuit ruling broadened the number of people with exemptions to the ban to include grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal US residents.

Without Kennedy&#39;s intervention, the appeals court decision would have gone into effect on Tuesday. Kennedy asked refugee ban challengers to file a response to the Trump administration&#39;s filing by noon on Tuesday.

Under the 9th US Circuit&#39;s ruling, up to 24,000 additional refugees would become eligible to enter the United States than otherwise would be allowed, according to the administration.

Trump&#39;s March 6 order banned travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks.

The order, which replaced a broader January one that was blocked by federal courts, was one of the most contentious acts of his presidency. Critics called it an unlawful &quot;Muslim ban&quot; that made good on Trump&#39;s promise as a candidate of &quot;a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.&quot;

The broader question of whether the travel ban discriminates against Muslims in violation of the US Constitution, as lower courts previously ruled, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Oct. 10.

The Supreme Court in June partially revived the order after its provisions were blocked by lower courts. But the justices said a ban could be applied only to those without a &quot;bona fide&quot; relationship with people or entities in the United States.

New litigation was brought by Hawaii over the meaning of that phrase, including whether written assurances by resettlement agencies obligating them to provide services for specific refugees would count.

Hawaii and other Democratic-led states, the American Civil Liberties Union and refugee groups filed legal challenges after Trump signed his order in March.

&quot;The Trump administration has ended its odd and ill-advised quest to ban grandmas from the country,&quot; Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said on Monday.

&quot;With respect to the admission to the United States of refugees with formal assurances and the Supreme Court&#39;s temporary stay order, each day matters,&quot; Chin added, promising to respond soon to the administration&#39;s filing.

In court papers filed earlier on Monday, the Justice Department said the 9th Circuit refugees decision &quot;will disrupt the status quo and frustrate orderly implementation of the order&#39;s refugee provisions.&quot;

Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer, contrasted Trump&#39;s efforts to keep alive his travel ban with the Republican president&#39;s decision last week to rescind a program that protected from deportation people brought to the United States illegally as children, dubbed &quot;Dreamers.&quot;

&quot;The extraordinary efforts the administration is taking in pursuit of the Muslim ban stand in stark contrast to its unwillingness to take a single step to protect 800,000 Dreamers,&quot; Jadwat said.

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy put on hold a lower court's ruling loosening the prohibition

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday provided a temporary reprieve for President Trump's order blocking most refugees from entering the United States, putting on hold a lower court's ruling loosening the prohibition. Kennedy's action gave the nine justices more time to consider the Justice Department's challenge filed on Monday to the lower court's decision allowing entry to refugees from around the world if they had a formal offer from a resettlement agency. The full Supreme Court could act within days. The Justice Department opted not to appeal another part of last Thursday's ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that related to Trump's ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations. The 9th Circuit ruling broadened the number of people with exemptions to the ban to include grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins of legal US residents. Without Kennedy's intervention, the appeals court decision would have gone into effect on Tuesday. Kennedy asked refugee ban challengers to file a response to the Trump administration's filing by noon on Tuesday. Under the 9th US Circuit's ruling, up to 24,000 additional refugees would become eligible to enter the United States than otherwise would be allowed, according to the administration. Trump's March 6 order banned travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and locked out most aspiring refugees for 120 days in a move the Republican president argued was needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The order, which replaced a broader January one that was blocked by federal courts, was one of the most contentious acts of his presidency. Critics called it an unlawful "Muslim ban" that made good on Trump's promise as a candidate of "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." The broader question of whether the travel ban discriminates against Muslims in violation of the US Constitution, as lower courts previously ruled, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Oct. 10. The Supreme Court in June partially revived the order after its provisions were blocked by lower courts. But the justices said a ban could be applied only to those without a "bona fide" relationship with people or entities in the United States. New litigation was brought by Hawaii over the meaning of that phrase, including whether written assurances by resettlement agencies obligating them to provide services for specific refugees would count. Hawaii and other Democratic-led states, the American Civil Liberties Union and refugee groups filed legal challenges after Trump signed his order in March. "The Trump administration has ended its odd and ill-advised quest to ban grandmas from the country," Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin said on Monday. "With respect to the admission to the United States of refugees with formal assurances and the Supreme Court's temporary stay order, each day matters," Chin added, promising to respond soon to the administration's filing. In court papers filed earlier on Monday, the Justice Department said the 9th Circuit refugees decision "will disrupt the status quo and frustrate orderly implementation of the order's refugee provisions." Omar Jadwat, an ACLU lawyer, contrasted Trump's efforts to keep alive his travel ban with the Republican president's decision last week to rescind a program that protected from deportation people brought to the United States illegally as children, dubbed "Dreamers." "The extraordinary efforts the administration is taking in pursuit of the Muslim ban stand in stark contrast to its unwillingness to take a single step to protect 800,000 Dreamers," Jadwat said.

US Supreme Court justice temporarily preserves Trump refugee ban

Pakistan&#39;s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Monday (September 11) it would be counter-productive for the United States to sanction Pakistani officials or further cut military assistance, warning it would hurt both countries&#39; fight against militancy.

US-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to &quot;agents of chaos&quot; by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants.

The United States has already begun conditioning future aid to Pakistan on progress Islamabad makes in tackling the Haqqani network militants who it alleges are Pakistan-based and have helped the Taliban carry out deadly attacks inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan denies hosting militant sanctuaries, and Islamabad bristles at claims it has not done enough to tackle militancy, noting it has borne the brunt of violence in the so-called war on terror, suffering more than 60,000 casualties since 2001.

Former petroleum minister Abbasi, 58, who was installed as prime minister last month after the Supreme Court ousted veteran premier Nawaz Sharif over undeclared income, told Reuters that any targeted sanctions by Washington against Pakistani military and intelligence officials would not help US. counter-terrorism efforts.

The Trump administration&#39;s tougher stance is seen as pushing Islamabad closer to Beijing, which has pledged about $60 billion in roads, rail and power infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its ambitious Belt and Road initiative to build vast land and sea trade routes linking Asia with Europe and Africa.

U.S.-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to "agents of chaos" by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Monday (September 11) it would be counter-productive for the United States to sanction Pakistani officials or further cut military assistance, warning it would hurt both countries' fight against militancy. US-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to "agents of chaos" by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants. The United States has already begun conditioning future aid to Pakistan on progress Islamabad makes in tackling the Haqqani network militants who it alleges are Pakistan-based and have helped the Taliban carry out deadly attacks inside Afghanistan. Pakistan denies hosting militant sanctuaries, and Islamabad bristles at claims it has not done enough to tackle militancy, noting it has borne the brunt of violence in the so-called war on terror, suffering more than 60,000 casualties since 2001. Former petroleum minister Abbasi, 58, who was installed as prime minister last month after the Supreme Court ousted veteran premier Nawaz Sharif over undeclared income, told Reuters that any targeted sanctions by Washington against Pakistani military and intelligence officials would not help US. counter-terrorism efforts. The Trump administration's tougher stance is seen as pushing Islamabad closer to Beijing, which has pledged about $60 billion in roads, rail and power infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its ambitious Belt and Road initiative to build vast land and sea trade routes linking Asia with Europe and Africa.

Pakistan PM warns US sanctions would be counter-productive

US&nbsp;President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/freedom-of-the-press-under-attack-from-trump-un-rights-boss-19683">Donald Trump&#39;s attacks on the media</a> are part of a global trend of hostility to freedom of speech and damage the US public interest, a UN&nbsp;human rights expert said&nbsp;on Friday.

David Kaye, the UN&nbsp;special rapporteur on the freedom of expression, said Trump&#39;s attacks, such as a&nbsp;Feb. 17&nbsp;tweet listing news outlets that he considered &quot;the enemy of the American People&quot;, were not without purpose.

&quot;They have concrete aims: to intimidate reporters into certain kinds of coverage, or clarify for his favored outlets what coverage he desires, or plant the seeds of doubt about news stories (such as the Russia investigation led by Robert Mueller).&quot;

The president&#39;s broadsides also served to silence criticism of his policies and to undermine the public&#39;s right to know what the government was doing with their tax dollars, he said.

&quot;The primary victim of Trump&rsquo;s campaign against independent news is the American public. He may see it as valuable politically, but it&rsquo;s wrong, and it risks doing long-term damage to a core value,&quot; Kaye wrote in an article published on the Just Security online forum.

&quot;When we tie together the jeremiads and rhetoric with what the Trump administration is doing in other governing spaces, the practice of attacking the press becomes clearer as policy than a solely reckless rant.&quot;

Kaye&#39;s analysis of Trump&#39;s attacks on the media comes two days after UN&nbsp;High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra&#39;ad al-Hussein raised the question of whether Trump&#39;s remarks amounted to an incitement to attack journalists.

&quot;President Trump&rsquo;s statements are indeed reckless, but they are consistent with a troubling trend of hostility toward open and honest government,&quot; Kaye wrote. &quot;And sadly, from the global perspective, it&rsquo;s part of a general trend of hostility to freedom of expression, online and off.&quot;

Freedom of the press existed, Kaye said, because the public had a right to information. He referred to an Aug. 4 press conference where Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanded that the &quot;culture of leaking must stop&quot;.

Sessions&#39; intent was not only to deter sources and whistleblowers but &quot;to deprive the public of stories of the highest public interest&quot; about the administration, Kaye said.

He said Trump was a &quot;regular purveyor&quot; of fake news, defined as &quot;intentionally fraudulent information given to the public&quot;, and his administration operated as if it had something to hide.

Trump's attacks on the media are part of a global trend of hostility to freedom of speech and damage the US public interest, he said

US President Donald Trump's attacks on the media are part of a global trend of hostility to freedom of speech and damage the US public interest, a UN human rights expert said on Friday. David Kaye, the UN special rapporteur on the freedom of expression, said Trump's attacks, such as a Feb. 17 tweet listing news outlets that he considered "the enemy of the American People", were not without purpose. "They have concrete aims: to intimidate reporters into certain kinds of coverage, or clarify for his favored outlets what coverage he desires, or plant the seeds of doubt about news stories (such as the Russia investigation led by Robert Mueller)." The president's broadsides also served to silence criticism of his policies and to undermine the public's right to know what the government was doing with their tax dollars, he said. "The primary victim of Trump’s campaign against independent news is the American public. He may see it as valuable politically, but it’s wrong, and it risks doing long-term damage to a core value," Kaye wrote in an article published on the Just Security online forum. "When we tie together the jeremiads and rhetoric with what the Trump administration is doing in other governing spaces, the practice of attacking the press becomes clearer as policy than a solely reckless rant." Kaye's analysis of Trump's attacks on the media comes two days after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein raised the question of whether Trump's remarks amounted to an incitement to attack journalists. "President Trump’s statements are indeed reckless, but they are consistent with a troubling trend of hostility toward open and honest government," Kaye wrote. "And sadly, from the global perspective, it’s part of a general trend of hostility to freedom of expression, online and off." Freedom of the press existed, Kaye said, because the public had a right to information. He referred to an Aug. 4 press conference where Attorney General Jeff Sessions demanded that the "culture of leaking must stop". Sessions' intent was not only to deter sources and whistleblowers but "to deprive the public of stories of the highest public interest" about the administration, Kaye said. He said Trump was a "regular purveyor" of fake news, defined as "intentionally fraudulent information given to the public", and his administration operated as if it had something to hide.

Trump's hostility toward media has a purpose, says UN human rights expert

Most Asian markets on Thursday brushed off a Wall Street retreat, with analysts saying a threatened government shut-down by Donald Trump was unlikely, while focus turns to a key central bankers&#39; meeting.

In a firebrand speech to supporters the embattled US president warned he would bring an end to Federal business in a bid to push through his controversial Mexican border wall, while also threatening to tear up a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.

The outburst fuelled concerns that the nascent administration is struggling to find consensus on Capitol Hill, even with his own Republican party, raising questions about his ability to push through promised tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending.&nbsp;

It also led to a warning from Fitch that it would review its US sovereign rating if the government was shut down.

All three main indexes in New York ended in the red.

However, House Speaker Paul Ryan said there would not be any closure of government, while analysts also pointed out that such a crisis was unlikely and Trump was probably bluffing.

&quot;It&#39;s Congress which will decide on the debt ceiling limit and avoid the shutdown -- not the president,&rdquo; said AxiTrader chief market strategist Greg McKenna.

He was also confident Trump&#39;s economic agenda could be pushed through, adding: &quot;It&#39;s likely the Congress will need to work out what it wants to do on tax cuts. I&#39;m still expecting some progress there in the months ahead.&quot;

Asian markets mostly started in positive territory. Hong Kong rose 0.5 per cent, a third-successive gain as traders returned to work after a typhoon hit the city Wednesday.

Sydney rose 0.2 per cent, Singapore was 0.3 per cent higher and Seoul put on 0.5 per cent, while there were also gains in Taipei and Manila.

However, Tokyo eased 0.1 per cent by the break on the back of a stronger yen, while Shanghai dipped 0.2 per cent.

Attention is now on the Jackson Hole symposium in Wyoming, where the world&#39;s top bankers are gathering, with US Federal Reserve boss Janet Yellen and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi on the list of priorities to watch.

With the US and eurozone economies both picking up, dealers are hoping for some pointers about the future of monetary policy.

The euro has rallied in recent weeks, hitting a near eight-year low against sterling, with the ECB expected at some point to start winding in its massive stimulus, while another round of upbeat economic data Wednesday ramped up those expectations.

&nbsp;Key figures around 0240 GMT&nbsp;

Tokyo - Nikkei 225: DOWN 0.1 per cent at 19,408.80 (break)

Hong Kong - Hang Seng: UP 0.5 per cent at 27,530.65

Shanghai - Composite: DOWN 0.2 per cent at 3,281.70

Euro/dollar: DOWN at $1.1806 from $1.1813 at 2030 GMT

Pound/euro: DOWN at 1.0835 euros from 1.0869 euros

Pound/dollar: DOWN at $1.2788 from $1.2801

Dollar/yen: UP at 109.20 yen from 108.98 yen

Oil - West Texas Intermediate: DOWN eight cents at $48.33 per barrel

Oil - Brent North Sea: DOWN eight cents at $52.49

New York - Dow: DOWN 0.4 per cent at 21,812.09 (close)

London - FTSE 100: FLAT at 7,382.65 (close)

In a firebrand speech to supporters the embattled US president warned he would bring an end to Federal business in a bid to push through his controversial Mexican border wall

Most Asian markets on Thursday brushed off a Wall Street retreat, with analysts saying a threatened government shut-down by Donald Trump was unlikely, while focus turns to a key central bankers' meeting. In a firebrand speech to supporters the embattled US president warned he would bring an end to Federal business in a bid to push through his controversial Mexican border wall, while also threatening to tear up a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. The outburst fuelled concerns that the nascent administration is struggling to find consensus on Capitol Hill, even with his own Republican party, raising questions about his ability to push through promised tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. It also led to a warning from Fitch that it would review its US sovereign rating if the government was shut down. All three main indexes in New York ended in the red. However, House Speaker Paul Ryan said there would not be any closure of government, while analysts also pointed out that such a crisis was unlikely and Trump was probably bluffing. "It's Congress which will decide on the debt ceiling limit and avoid the shutdown -- not the president,” said AxiTrader chief market strategist Greg McKenna. He was also confident Trump's economic agenda could be pushed through, adding: "It's likely the Congress will need to work out what it wants to do on tax cuts. I'm still expecting some progress there in the months ahead." Asian markets mostly started in positive territory. Hong Kong rose 0.5 per cent, a third-successive gain as traders returned to work after a typhoon hit the city Wednesday. Sydney rose 0.2 per cent, Singapore was 0.3 per cent higher and Seoul put on 0.5 per cent, while there were also gains in Taipei and Manila. However, Tokyo eased 0.1 per cent by the break on the back of a stronger yen, while Shanghai dipped 0.2 per cent. Attention is now on the Jackson Hole symposium in Wyoming, where the world's top bankers are gathering, with US Federal Reserve boss Janet Yellen and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi on the list of priorities to watch. With the US and eurozone economies both picking up, dealers are hoping for some pointers about the future of monetary policy. The euro has rallied in recent weeks, hitting a near eight-year low against sterling, with the ECB expected at some point to start winding in its massive stimulus, while another round of upbeat economic data Wednesday ramped up those expectations. Key figures around 0240 GMT Tokyo - Nikkei 225: DOWN 0.1 per cent at 19,408.80 (break) Hong Kong - Hang Seng: UP 0.5 per cent at 27,530.65 Shanghai - Composite: DOWN 0.2 per cent at 3,281.70 Euro/dollar: DOWN at $1.1806 from $1.1813 at 2030 GMT Pound/euro: DOWN at 1.0835 euros from 1.0869 euros Pound/dollar: DOWN at $1.2788 from $1.2801 Dollar/yen: UP at 109.20 yen from 108.98 yen Oil - West Texas Intermediate: DOWN eight cents at $48.33 per barrel Oil - Brent North Sea: DOWN eight cents at $52.49 New York - Dow: DOWN 0.4 per cent at 21,812.09 (close) London - FTSE 100: FLAT at 7,382.65 (close)

Asian markets brush off Trump threat of Mexico shutdown

A former CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson might be free from her professional commitments to the intelligence agency but she has a new security mission--to ban Trump from Twitter.

She wants @POTUS, the official handle of Donald Trump on Twitter to be taken off.

But as incomprehensible as it sounds, the means to achieve this is all the more difficult to believe.&nbsp;

The ex-agent is willing to buy the social networking site just so that she can ban the US president.

In all seriousness, she has launched a campaign via the help of a page called GoFundMe to buy a controlling interest in Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If <a href="https://twitter.com/Twitter">@Twitter</a> executives won&rsquo;t shut down Trump&rsquo;s violence and hate, then it&#39;s up to us. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BuyTwitter?src=hash">#BuyTwitter</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BanTrump?src=hash">#BanTrump</a> <a href="https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx">https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx</a>
&mdash; Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) <a href="https://twitter.com/ValeriePlame/status/898610808527011840">August 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump">@realDonaldTrump</a>&rsquo;s biggest megaphone is publicly traded. Let&rsquo;s <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BuyTwitter?src=hash">#BuyTwitter</a> &amp; shut him down for good. <a href="https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx">https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx</a>
&mdash; Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) <a href="https://twitter.com/ValeriePlame/status/900056997218861057">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
And btw, ZERO funds go to me personally. If there&#39;s not enough to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BuyTwitter?src=hash">#BuyTwitter</a> all proceeds go to <a href="https://twitter.com/globalzero">@globalzero</a>&rsquo;s campaign to stop nuclear war.
&mdash; Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) <a href="https://twitter.com/ValeriePlame/status/900409852194893826">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

She writes on the company page: &quot;Donald Trump has done a lot of horrible things on Twitter. From emboldening white supremacists to promoting violence against journalists, his tweets damage the country and put people in harm&#39;s way. But threatening actual nuclear war with North Korea takes it to a dangerous new level.&quot;

This, she writes after Trump recently took to Twitter to share his thoughts on North Korea:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/895970429734711298">August 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Wilson describes his actions as&nbsp;&quot;weaponizing Twitter&quot; and added that&nbsp;&quot;Tweets like this are heard around the world&quot;&nbsp;and &quot;As he uses his biggest platform to escalate the crisis, this could all-too-easily spark a military confrontation that goes nuclear.&quot;

After she launched the campaign on August 16, she has been able to raise more than $3000 and wants to hit $1 billion. The company is currently worth nearly $12 billion, with its shares going for around $16.

Some Twitteratis agree&nbsp;with her:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Love this. Best idea yet to shut him up (beyond congress doing the legally obvious). Anyway. Since <a href="https://twitter.com/Twitter">@Twitter</a> can&#39;t do it, we can. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BuyTwitter?src=hash">#BuyTwitter</a> <a href="https://t.co/E5Adnpzl4J">https://t.co/E5Adnpzl4J</a>
&mdash; John Rapp (@JohnWheelerRapp) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnWheelerRapp/status/900400922429403136">August 23, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I&#39;m with Valerie. We provide all Twitter&#39;s content -- we can shut down its hate. Let&#39;s buy this thing. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BuyTwitter?src=hash">#BuyTwitter</a> <a href="https://t.co/IgpaaUCiLh">https://t.co/IgpaaUCiLh</a>
&mdash; David Slack (@slack2thefuture) <a href="https://twitter.com/slack2thefuture/status/898612242114949120">August 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
community control! love this <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BanTrump?src=hash">#BanTrump</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/buytwitter?src=hash">#buytwitter</a> campaign! <a href="https://t.co/PdW6EEX8Jh">https://t.co/PdW6EEX8Jh</a>
&mdash; Joann Lee (@ecooptimist) <a href="https://twitter.com/ecooptimist/status/898668745207332864">August 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

She writes, &quot;At the current market rate that would require over a billion dollars &mdash; but that&#39;s a small price to pay to take away Trump&#39;s most powerful megaphone and prevent a horrific nuclear war.&quot;

When she was enquired as for what might happen if they are not able to raise the desired amount, she responds with how they plan to&nbsp;buy a &quot;significant stake&quot; in order to push the proposal at the annual stakeholder&#39;s meeting of Twitter.&nbsp;

As for Twitter, they have steered away from the debate and not responded to the campaign. On previous occasions, Twitter has vociferously defended Trump&#39;s use of the social media platform. On one such occasion, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said that it was important for people to&nbsp;&quot;hear directly from our leadership.&quot;

For those who feel her name rings a bell, Wilson is best known for her name being revealed as a CIA operative at the time of George W. Bush administration as part of a leak &nbsp;Wilson left the CIA in 2005 after the leak of her identity. Since she retired, she has spent her time writing several bestselling novels, raising her twin daughters, and advocating for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

(WION)

Accusing Trump of "weaponizing Twitter", Wilson is raising funds to buy Twitter

A former CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson might be free from her professional commitments to the intelligence agency but she has a new security mission--to ban Trump from Twitter. She wants @POTUS, the official handle of Donald Trump on Twitter to be taken off. But as incomprehensible as it sounds, the means to achieve this is all the more difficult to believe. The ex-agent is willing to buy the social networking site just so that she can ban the US president. In all seriousness, she has launched a campaign via the help of a page called GoFundMe to buy a controlling interest in Twitter. If @Twitter executives won’t shut down Trump’s violence and hate, then it's up to us. #BuyTwitter #BanTrump https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx — Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) August 18, 2017 × @realDonaldTrump’s biggest megaphone is publicly traded. Let’s #BuyTwitter & shut him down for good. https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx — Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) August 22, 2017 × And btw, ZERO funds go to me personally. If there's not enough to #BuyTwitter all proceeds go to @globalzero’s campaign to stop nuclear war. — Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) August 23, 2017 × She writes on the company page: "Donald Trump has done a lot of horrible things on Twitter. From emboldening white supremacists to promoting violence against journalists, his tweets damage the country and put people in harm's way. But threatening actual nuclear war with North Korea takes it to a dangerous new level." This, she writes after Trump recently took to Twitter to share his thoughts on North Korea: Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 11, 2017 × Wilson describes his actions as "weaponizing Twitter" and added that "Tweets like this are heard around the world" and "As he uses his biggest platform to escalate the crisis, this could all-too-easily spark a military confrontation that goes nuclear." After she launched the campaign on August 16, she has been able to raise more than $3000 and wants to hit $1 billion. The company is currently worth nearly $12 billion, with its shares going for around $16. Some Twitteratis agree with her: Love this. Best idea yet to shut him up (beyond congress doing the legally obvious). Anyway. Since @Twitter can't do it, we can. #BuyTwitter https://t.co/E5Adnpzl4J — John Rapp (@JohnWheelerRapp) August 23, 2017 × I'm with Valerie. We provide all Twitter's content -- we can shut down its hate. Let's buy this thing. #BuyTwitter https://t.co/IgpaaUCiLh — David Slack (@slack2thefuture) August 18, 2017 × community control! love this #BanTrump #buytwitter campaign! https://t.co/PdW6EEX8Jh — Joann Lee (@ecooptimist) August 18, 2017 × She writes, "At the current market rate that would require over a billion dollars — but that's a small price to pay to take away Trump's most powerful megaphone and prevent a horrific nuclear war." When she was enquired as for what might happen if they are not able to raise the desired amount, she responds with how they plan to buy a "significant stake" in order to push the proposal at the annual stakeholder's meeting of Twitter. As for Twitter, they have steered away from the debate and not responded to the campaign. On previous occasions, Twitter has vociferously defended Trump's use of the social media platform. On one such occasion, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said that it was important for people to "hear directly from our leadership." For those who feel her name rings a bell, Wilson is best known for her name being revealed as a CIA operative at the time of George W. Bush administration as part of a leak Wilson left the CIA in 2005 after the leak of her identity. Since she retired, she has spent her time writing several bestselling novels, raising her twin daughters, and advocating for the elimination of nuclear weapons. (WION)

A former CIA agent wants to buy Twitter to ban Donald Trump

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has refused to rule out the use of military action, involving air strikes, on terror groups in Pakistan and cutting off its status as a privileged military ally if Islamabad doesn&#39;t crack down on the Taliban and other extremist groups.

&quot;We are going to attack terrorists wherever they live, and we have put people on notice that if you are harboring or providing safe haven to terrorists, be warned, be forewarned,&quot; Washington Examiner quoted Tillerson as saying.

&quot;All those things... are on the table for discussion, if, in fact, they are unwilling to change their posture or change their approach to how they&#39;re dealing with the numerous terrorist organisations that find safe haven in Pakistan,&quot; he added.

&quot;Pakistan must adopt a different approach, and we are ready to work with them to help them protect themselves against these terrorist organisations. We are going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area.&quot;

&quot;We have some leverage in terms of aid, their status as a non-NATO alliance partner -- all of that can be put on the table,&quot; he further said.

Reinforcing US President Donald Trump&#39;s warning issued to Pakistan over its alleged support to extremist groups in the region, the US Secretary of State said, &quot;There&#39;s been an erosion in trust because we have witnessed terrorist organisations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan to plan and carry out attacks against US servicemen, US officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan.&quot;

Meanwhile, US&nbsp;National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson Michael Anton has warned that President Donald Trump is planning to impose sanctions on terrorists including the Haqqani network having links to the&nbsp;Pakistan&nbsp;Governemnt and has outrightly dismissed its allegations against India&#39;s encirclement through Afghanistan.

While announcing US policy on Afghanistan and South Asia, President Trump has vowed to win the war in Afghanistan by committing more US troops as he called on Nato allies such as Britain to increase troop numbers &quot;in line with our own&quot;.

&quot;We will ask our Nato allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line without own - we are confident they will,&quot; Trump said.

'There's been an erosion in trust because we have witnessed terrorist organisations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan to plan and carry out attacks against US servicemen, US officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan', Rex Tillerson said

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has refused to rule out the use of military action, involving air strikes, on terror groups in Pakistan and cutting off its status as a privileged military ally if Islamabad doesn't crack down on the Taliban and other extremist groups. "We are going to attack terrorists wherever they live, and we have put people on notice that if you are harboring or providing safe haven to terrorists, be warned, be forewarned," Washington Examiner quoted Tillerson as saying. "All those things... are on the table for discussion, if, in fact, they are unwilling to change their posture or change their approach to how they're dealing with the numerous terrorist organisations that find safe haven in Pakistan," he added. "Pakistan must adopt a different approach, and we are ready to work with them to help them protect themselves against these terrorist organisations. We are going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area." "We have some leverage in terms of aid, their status as a non-NATO alliance partner -- all of that can be put on the table," he further said. Reinforcing US President Donald Trump's warning issued to Pakistan over its alleged support to extremist groups in the region, the US Secretary of State said, "There's been an erosion in trust because we have witnessed terrorist organisations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan to plan and carry out attacks against US servicemen, US officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan." Meanwhile, US National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson Michael Anton has warned that President Donald Trump is planning to impose sanctions on terrorists including the Haqqani network having links to the Pakistan Governemnt and has outrightly dismissed its allegations against India's encirclement through Afghanistan. While announcing US policy on Afghanistan and South Asia, President Trump has vowed to win the war in Afghanistan by committing more US troops as he called on Nato allies such as Britain to increase troop numbers "in line with our own". "We will ask our Nato allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line without own - we are confident they will," Trump said.

Air strikes on terror groups in Pakistan on table: US secretary of state

President Donald Trump&#39;s administration is set to deliver the Pentagon guidance in coming days on how to implement his ban on transgender people serving in the military, The Wall Street Journal said Wednesday.

Trump last month deployed a series of tweets that upended an Obama-era policy of more than a year allowing transgender troops to serve openly, an announcement that came with little apparent coordination with the Pentagon.

The two-and-a-half page White House memo would let Defense Secretary Jim Mattis &quot;consider a service member&#39;s ability to deploy in deciding whether to kick them out of the military,&quot; the WSJ said.

Citing US officials familiar with the memo, the paper said the guidance instructs the Pentagon not to admit new transgender people and to end payments for medical treatment regimens for members already serving.

Since Trump&#39;s declaration several senior military officials have voiced unease over the policy shift, with the head of the Coast Guard saying he would not &quot;break faith&quot; with transgender personnel.

He said there were 13 Coast Guard members who have come out as transgender, noting &quot;all of them are doing meaningful Coast Guard work today.&quot;

A day after the president&#39;s bombshell announcement, General Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a short memo to senior officers and enlisted leaders that the current policy should remain in effect until Trump gives formal direction to the Pentagon and Mattis issues new guidance.

&quot;In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect,&quot; Dunford wrote.

General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army, had said he first learned of the change on the news.

&quot;We will work through the implementation guidance when we get it, and then we will move from there,&quot; Milley said.&nbsp;

Five transgender women in the US military are suing Trump and the Pentagon over the announcement, saying they face uncertainty about their futures, including whether they would be fired or lose post-military and retirement benefits.

Trump has said he did the Pentagon a &quot;great favor&quot; by banning transgender troops, saying the issue had been &quot;complicated&quot; and &quot;confusing&quot; for the military.

The number of transgender troops among America&#39;s 1.3 million active duty service members is small, with estimates ranging from between 1,320 and 15,000.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the guidance instructs the Pentagon not to admit new transgender people and to end payments for medical treatment regimens for members already serving

President Donald Trump's administration is set to deliver the Pentagon guidance in coming days on how to implement his ban on transgender people serving in the military, The Wall Street Journal said Wednesday. Trump last month deployed a series of tweets that upended an Obama-era policy of more than a year allowing transgender troops to serve openly, an announcement that came with little apparent coordination with the Pentagon. The two-and-a-half page White House memo would let Defense Secretary Jim Mattis "consider a service member's ability to deploy in deciding whether to kick them out of the military," the WSJ said. Citing US officials familiar with the memo, the paper said the guidance instructs the Pentagon not to admit new transgender people and to end payments for medical treatment regimens for members already serving. Since Trump's declaration several senior military officials have voiced unease over the policy shift, with the head of the Coast Guard saying he would not "break faith" with transgender personnel. He said there were 13 Coast Guard members who have come out as transgender, noting "all of them are doing meaningful Coast Guard work today." A day after the president's bombshell announcement, General Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a short memo to senior officers and enlisted leaders that the current policy should remain in effect until Trump gives formal direction to the Pentagon and Mattis issues new guidance. "In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," Dunford wrote. General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army, had said he first learned of the change on the news. "We will work through the implementation guidance when we get it, and then we will move from there," Milley said. Five transgender women in the US military are suing Trump and the Pentagon over the announcement, saying they face uncertainty about their futures, including whether they would be fired or lose post-military and retirement benefits. Trump has said he did the Pentagon a "great favor" by banning transgender troops, saying the issue had been "complicated" and "confusing" for the military. The number of transgender troops among America's 1.3 million active duty service members is small, with estimates ranging from between 1,320 and 15,000.

Trump administration to give guidance on military transgender ban: Report

President Donald Trump, surrounded by thousands of supporters on Tuesday, defended his response to the violence at a rally organised by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attacked the media for &quot;giving a platform to hate groups.&quot;

Trump told the friendly crowd at the political rally in Arizona that his words in the aftermath of the Virginia event had been &quot;perfect.&quot;

He revved up the crowd with criticism of journalists, who he said did not report what he had said. Many in the crowd turned and pointed at reporters in the room. Some chanted &quot;CNN sucks.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Trump revved up the crowd with criticism of journalists, who he said did not report what he had said. Many in the crowd turned and pointed at reporters in the room. Some chanted &#39;CNN sucks&#39;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Trump revved up the crowd with criticism of journalists, who he said did not report what he had said. Many in the crowd turned and pointed at reporters in the room. Some chanted 'CNN sucks'" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Trump also suggested he might pardon Joe Arpaio, a former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, who was found guilty last month of criminal contempt for violating the terms of a 2011 court order in a racial profiling case.

Arpaio, 85, lost a re-election bid last year in the county.

&quot;Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?&quot; Trump asked, sparking loud applause and a chant of &quot;Pardon Joe!&quot;

&quot;Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job?&quot; Trump asked, before predicting that Arpaio would be just fine. &quot;I won&#39;t do it tonight because I don&#39;t want to cause any controversy,&quot; he said.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters travelling with Trump on Air Force One earlier on Tuesday: &quot;There will be no discussion of that today at any point and no action will be taken on that front at any point today.&quot;

Broad criticism&nbsp;

Trump drew broad criticism for blaming both white nationalists and counter-protesters for the deadly violence at the Charlottesville rally, which was organized by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. One woman was killed.

Protesters outside Tuesday&#39;s rally yelled: &ldquo;Shame, shame, shame&rdquo; and &ldquo;No Trump, No KKK, No fascist USA&rdquo; as the Trump supporters began filing into the Phoenix Convention Center.

Supporters, who lined up for hours in the Arizona heat ahead of the event, chanted: &ldquo;Build the wall,&rdquo; a reference to Trump&#39;s pledge to erect a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico.

Many wore red hats with Trump&#39;s campaign slogan, &ldquo;Make America Great Again.&quot;

Trump has held a series of 2020 re-election campaign stops despite only having taken office in January.

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat, had asked him to postpone Tuesday&#39;s event, scheduled for 7 p.m. MST (0200 GMT Wednesday), while the nation healed from outrage and division after the deadly rally in Charlottesville.

Neither John McCain nor Jeff Flake, Arizona&#39;s senators, was expected to attend the Phoenix event, said a source familiar with Flake&#39;s re-election campaign and published reports, underscoring Trump&#39;s fractious relationship with some in his own party.

Republican Governor Doug Ducey told the Arizona Republic on Monday that he would welcome Trump on the tarmac when he arrived but would not attend the rally.

Before flying to Phoenix, the state capital, Trump landed in Yuma, Arizona, near the Mexican border, for a tour of border security facilities. He is seeking congressional funding for the wall he wants built along the border to deter illegal immigration..

Heavy police presence&nbsp;

A heavy police presence deployed around the Phoenix venue.

Some White House officials privately expressed concern on Monday about Trump&#39;s Phoenix rally, fearing he might revisit the Charlottesville issue in the heat of the moment while cheered on by supporters.

&quot;The president is always welcome in Arizona,&quot; Flake spokesman Will Allison said in an emailed statement.

Flake &quot;hopes the president will speak constructively about moving forward with tax reform, border security, and other important issues facing our country,&quot; Allison said.

Earlier this summer, Flake published a book questioning the direction of the Republican Party in the Trump era, making him one of the few party members willing to criticize the president.

Last week, Trump sent a tweet voicing support for Flake&#39;s challenger, Kelli Ward, in next year&#39;s Arizona Senate Republican primary. In the tweet, Trump called Flake &quot;toxic&quot; and &quot;weak.&quot;

The president has also made caustic remarks about McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and war hero, who is battling cancer. A spokesman for McCain could not be reached immediately.

The Phoenix event is Trump&#39;s first trip as president to Arizona, which he won in the 2016 election.&nbsp;

Police use gas to disperse protesters outside Trump rally in Phoenix

Police deployed gas to disperse crowds in Phoenix, Arizona, after protesters outside a rally by U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday threw rocks and bottles, police said.

&quot;People in the crowd have begun throwing rocks and bottles at police. They also dispersed some gas in the area,&quot; Phoenix Police Department spokesman Sergeant Jonathan Howard said.

&quot;Police have responded with pepper balls and OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray in an attempt to disperse the crowd and stop the assaults,&quot; he said.

Police have not given an estimate of the number of protesters who turned out for the event, but Arizona media said there were several thousand people.

Media reports said some protesters had thrown bottles at police.

Trump blamed both white nationalists and counter-protesters for the violence at the Charlottesville rally which had been organised by neo-Nazis and white supremacists

President Donald Trump, surrounded by thousands of supporters on Tuesday, defended his response to the violence at a rally organised by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attacked the media for "giving a platform to hate groups." Trump told the friendly crowd at the political rally in Arizona that his words in the aftermath of the Virginia event had been "perfect." He revved up the crowd with criticism of journalists, who he said did not report what he had said. Many in the crowd turned and pointed at reporters in the room. Some chanted "CNN sucks." Trump revved up the crowd with criticism of journalists, who he said did not report what he had said. Many in the crowd turned and pointed at reporters in the room. Some chanted 'CNN sucks' × Trump also suggested he might pardon Joe Arpaio, a former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, who was found guilty last month of criminal contempt for violating the terms of a 2011 court order in a racial profiling case. Arpaio, 85, lost a re-election bid last year in the county. "Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?" Trump asked, sparking loud applause and a chant of "Pardon Joe!" "Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job?" Trump asked, before predicting that Arpaio would be just fine. "I won't do it tonight because I don't want to cause any controversy," he said. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters travelling with Trump on Air Force One earlier on Tuesday: "There will be no discussion of that today at any point and no action will be taken on that front at any point today." Broad criticism Trump drew broad criticism for blaming both white nationalists and counter-protesters for the deadly violence at the Charlottesville rally, which was organized by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. One woman was killed. Protesters outside Tuesday's rally yelled: “Shame, shame, shame” and “No Trump, No KKK, No fascist USA” as the Trump supporters began filing into the Phoenix Convention Center. Supporters, who lined up for hours in the Arizona heat ahead of the event, chanted: “Build the wall,” a reference to Trump's pledge to erect a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Many wore red hats with Trump's campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again." Trump has held a series of 2020 re-election campaign stops despite only having taken office in January. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat, had asked him to postpone Tuesday's event, scheduled for 7 p.m. MST (0200 GMT Wednesday), while the nation healed from outrage and division after the deadly rally in Charlottesville. Neither John McCain nor Jeff Flake, Arizona's senators, was expected to attend the Phoenix event, said a source familiar with Flake's re-election campaign and published reports, underscoring Trump's fractious relationship with some in his own party. Republican Governor Doug Ducey told the Arizona Republic on Monday that he would welcome Trump on the tarmac when he arrived but would not attend the rally. Before flying to Phoenix, the state capital, Trump landed in Yuma, Arizona, near the Mexican border, for a tour of border security facilities. He is seeking congressional funding for the wall he wants built along the border to deter illegal immigration.. Heavy police presence A heavy police presence deployed around the Phoenix venue. Some White House officials privately expressed concern on Monday about Trump's Phoenix rally, fearing he might revisit the Charlottesville issue in the heat of the moment while cheered on by supporters. "The president is always welcome in Arizona," Flake spokesman Will Allison said in an emailed statement. Flake "hopes the president will speak constructively about moving forward with tax reform, border security, and other important issues facing our country," Allison said. Earlier this summer, Flake published a book questioning the direction of the Republican Party in the Trump era, making him one of the few party members willing to criticize the president. Last week, Trump sent a tweet voicing support for Flake's challenger, Kelli Ward, in next year's Arizona Senate Republican primary. In the tweet, Trump called Flake "toxic" and "weak." The president has also made caustic remarks about McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and war hero, who is battling cancer. A spokesman for McCain could not be reached immediately. The Phoenix event is Trump's first trip as president to Arizona, which he won in the 2016 election. Police use gas to disperse protesters outside Trump rally in Phoenix Police deployed gas to disperse crowds in Phoenix, Arizona, after protesters outside a rally by U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday threw rocks and bottles, police said. "People in the crowd have begun throwing rocks and bottles at police. They also dispersed some gas in the area," Phoenix Police Department spokesman Sergeant Jonathan Howard said. "Police have responded with pepper balls and OC (oleoresin capsicum) spray in an attempt to disperse the crowd and stop the assaults," he said. Police have not given an estimate of the number of protesters who turned out for the event, but Arizona media said there were several thousand people. Media reports said some protesters had thrown bottles at police.

Trump defends response to Charlottesville violence at Arizona rally

Rolling back territorial gains by the Taliban and strengthening the Afghanistan army&#39;s ability to fight will be two key objectives of President Donald Trump&#39;s new strategy for the country, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.

Trump, in a televised speech on Monday, promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US-backed Afghan government.

In outlining his strategy to give the US&nbsp;military more authority to make battlefield decisions, Trump did not provide a timetable for determining whether the mission is a success or how commanders would be able to judge progress.

The senior administration official said, however, that one general measure of progress was assessing how much and what territory is controlled by the Afghan government or by the Taliban and other extremist groups such as Islamic State&#39;s Afghan affiliate.

&quot;It&#39;s also the estimated number of fighters, the presence of al Qaeda and ISIS, how strong are they, how many fighters do they have, how are their training camps, what are their finance networks like,&quot; the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Also key will be the effectiveness of the Afghan army and whether US-led armed forces can help it seize control of some territory held by the Taliban, the official added.

Trump, who was reluctant to approve a deeper engagement in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, wanted to keep a close eye on whether progress is being made, the official said.

&quot;I think we&rsquo;re going to be taking the temperature continuously,&quot; the official said. &quot;I don&rsquo;t think we expect to see any real gains materialize for at least six months. But from that point on, it&rsquo;s going to be something that we essentially never stop evaluating.&quot;

US.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban&#39;s hard-line Islamist government in late 2001 because it sheltered al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that year.

US&nbsp;forces have been bogged down since in a war that has vexed three American presidents. About 2,400 US&nbsp;troops have died there in America&#39;s longest military conflict.

&#39;Progressive process&#39;

Three US&nbsp;officials said on Tuesday the administration had yet to settle on specific metrics to measure progress in Afghanistan and assess the contributions of the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and America&#39;s NATO allies.

One of the officials said there was no point &quot;in setting specific targets, much less making them public because that would risk making our partners think that once they had met those marks, they didn&#39;t have to do more.&quot;

&quot;What we&#39;re after is a progressive process,&quot; the official said, &quot;so, for example, the Afghan security forces keep improving their capabilities until they don&#39;t need us anymore, the government in Kabul keeps improving its record on eliminating corruption and improving local, regional and national governance.&quot;

But Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, struck a critical tone on Tuesday.

&quot;While a &#39;conditions based&#39; approach is appealing to military leaders because it gives the Taliban less certainty about how long it will take to wait us out, it also diminishes pressure on the Afghan government to reform itself and give the Afghan people something worth fighting for, since it indicates a willingness to bail them out indefinitely,&quot; Schiff said in a statement.

The second key objective will be strengthening the Afghanistan army's ability to fight

Rolling back territorial gains by the Taliban and strengthening the Afghanistan army's ability to fight will be two key objectives of President Donald Trump's new strategy for the country, a senior administration official said on Tuesday. Trump, in a televised speech on Monday, promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US-backed Afghan government. In outlining his strategy to give the US military more authority to make battlefield decisions, Trump did not provide a timetable for determining whether the mission is a success or how commanders would be able to judge progress. The senior administration official said, however, that one general measure of progress was assessing how much and what territory is controlled by the Afghan government or by the Taliban and other extremist groups such as Islamic State's Afghan affiliate. "It's also the estimated number of fighters, the presence of al Qaeda and ISIS, how strong are they, how many fighters do they have, how are their training camps, what are their finance networks like," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Also key will be the effectiveness of the Afghan army and whether US-led armed forces can help it seize control of some territory held by the Taliban, the official added. Trump, who was reluctant to approve a deeper engagement in Afghanistan after 16 years of war, wanted to keep a close eye on whether progress is being made, the official said. "I think we’re going to be taking the temperature continuously," the official said. "I don’t think we expect to see any real gains materialize for at least six months. But from that point on, it’s going to be something that we essentially never stop evaluating." US.-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban's hard-line Islamist government in late 2001 because it sheltered al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that year. US forces have been bogged down since in a war that has vexed three American presidents. About 2,400 US troops have died there in America's longest military conflict. 'Progressive process' Three US officials said on Tuesday the administration had yet to settle on specific metrics to measure progress in Afghanistan and assess the contributions of the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and America's NATO allies. One of the officials said there was no point "in setting specific targets, much less making them public because that would risk making our partners think that once they had met those marks, they didn't have to do more." "What we're after is a progressive process," the official said, "so, for example, the Afghan security forces keep improving their capabilities until they don't need us anymore, the government in Kabul keeps improving its record on eliminating corruption and improving local, regional and national governance." But Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, struck a critical tone on Tuesday. "While a 'conditions based' approach is appealing to military leaders because it gives the Taliban less certainty about how long it will take to wait us out, it also diminishes pressure on the Afghan government to reform itself and give the Afghan people something worth fighting for, since it indicates a willingness to bail them out indefinitely," Schiff said in a statement.

Taking back territory held by Taliban key aim of Trump's new Afghan strategy: Official

Reversing course from his campaign pledges, President Donald Trump&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;night committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signaling he would dispatch more troops to America&#39;s longest war and vowing &quot;a fight to win.&quot;

In a speech offering few specifics, Trump promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US backed Afghan government and he singled out Pakistan for harboring militants.

&quot;We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,&quot; he said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington.

Trump ran for the US&nbsp;presidency calling for a swift US&nbsp;withdrawal from Afghanistan, and he acknowledged&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;that he was going against his instincts in approving the new campaign plan sought by his military advisers.

&quot;The consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable,&quot; he said. &quot;A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including IS&nbsp;and al Qaeda, would instantly fill.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,&#39; Trump said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,' Trump said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The Republican president, who has criticised his predecessors for setting deadlines for drawing down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, declined to put a time line on expanded US&nbsp;military operations in Afghanistan.

Trump now inherits the same challenges as predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama, including a stubborn Taliban insurgency and a weak, divided government in Kabul. He is laying the groundwork for greater US&nbsp;involvement without a clear end in sight or providing specific benchmarks for success.

US&nbsp;officials said he had signed off on Defense Secretary James Mattis&#39; plans to send about 4,000 more troops to add to the roughly 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan.

Mattis said he had directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out the strategy and that he would be consulting with NATO and US&nbsp;allies, several of which had also committed to increasing troops.

&nbsp;&#39;Not a Blank Check&#39;

Trump warned that US support &quot;is not a blank check,&quot; and insisted he would not engage in &quot;nation-building,&quot; a practice he has accused his predecessors of doing at huge cost.

Through the speech, Trump insisted that others, the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies, step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict.

Trump saved his sharpest words for Pakistan.

&quot;We can no longer be silent about Pakistan&rsquo;s safe havens,&quot; Trump said. &quot;Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor terrorists.&quot;

Senior US officials warned he could reduce security assistance for Pakistan unless the nuclear-armed nation cooperates more in preventing militants from using safe havens on its soil.

A Pakistani army spokesman said&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;that Pakistan had taken action against all Islamist militants including the Haqqani network, which is allied to Afghan Taliban insurgents.

&quot;There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. We have operated against all terrorists, including (the) Haqqani network,&quot; spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor told a media briefing in Islamabad.

Obama also took Pakistan to task for supporting militants, and sent Navy SEALs into the country to kill al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. It remains to be seen if Trump&#39;s rhetoric will change Pakistan&#39;s calculations in Afghanistan, which it sees as a vital strategic interest.

Trump expanded the US&nbsp;military&#39;s authority for American armed forces to target militant and criminal networks. He said that US&nbsp;enemies in Afghanistan &quot;need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American arms.&quot;

&quot;Our troops will fight to win,&quot; he added.

A US led coalition invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Islamist Taliban government for harboring al Qaeda militants who plotted the&nbsp;Sept. 11&nbsp;attacks. But US&nbsp;forces have remained bogged down there through the presidencies of Bush, Obama and now Trump. About 2,400 US&nbsp;forces have died in Afghanistan since the invasion.

Past&nbsp;Skeptism &nbsp; &nbsp;

The speech came after a months-long review of US&nbsp;policy in which Trump frequently tangled with his top advisers on the future of US&nbsp;involvement in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents have been making territorial gains.

US&nbsp;military and intelligence officials are concerned that a Taliban victory over Afghan President Ashraf Ghani&#39;s government would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State&rsquo;s regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot attacks against the United States and its allies.

&quot;The unfortunate truth is that this strategy is long overdue and in the interim the Taliban has made dangerous inroads,&quot; said senior Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Jack Reed, senior Democrat on the committee, criticised what he called a speech short on details.

&quot;President Trump now recognises the need to stabilise the situation and assist the government of Afghanistan to regain momentum. But he was very vague,&quot; Reed said.

Trump suggested he was hoping for eventual peace talks, and said it might be possible to have a political settlement with elements of the Taliban.

&quot;But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen,&quot; he said.

In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: &quot;We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions.&quot;

Trump overcame his own skepticism about the war that began in October 2001. He said repeatedly on the campaign trail last year that the war was too costly in lives and money.

&quot;My original instinct was to pull out,&quot; he said in his speech, but added he was convinced by his national security advisers to strengthen the US ability to prevent the Taliban from ousting the government in Kabul.

Trump&#39;s speech came as the president tries to rebound after he was engulfed in controversy for saying both sides were to blame for violence between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month.

In an allusion to the Charlottesville uproar, Trump said: &quot;We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.&quot;

US&nbsp;commanders have long planned for a possible shift in resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as the fight against Islamic State comes off its peak, following gains made in the Iraqi city of Mosul and other areas.

One reason the White House decision took so long, two officials who participated in the discussions said&nbsp;on Sunday, is that it was difficult to get Trump to accept the need for a broader regional strategy that included US&nbsp;policy toward Pakistan.

Trump received a wide range of conflicting options, the officials said.

White House national security adviser HR&nbsp;McMaster and other advisers favored accepting a request for an 4,000 additional US forces.

But recently ousted White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon had argued for the withdrawal of all US&nbsp;forces, saying the war was still not winnable, US&nbsp;officials said. Bannon was fired&nbsp;on Friday&nbsp;by Trump.

Breitbart News, the hard-right news site to which Bannon has returned as executive chairman, said on its home page that Trump &quot;reverses course&quot; and &quot;defends flip-flop in somber speech.&quot;

He signalled he would dispatch more troops to America's longest war

Reversing course from his campaign pledges, President Donald Trump on Monday night committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signaling he would dispatch more troops to America's longest war and vowing "a fight to win." In a speech offering few specifics, Trump promised a stepped-up military campaign against Taliban insurgents who have gained ground against the US backed Afghan government and he singled out Pakistan for harboring militants. "We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists," he said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington. Trump ran for the US presidency calling for a swift US withdrawal from Afghanistan, and he acknowledged on Monday that he was going against his instincts in approving the new campaign plan sought by his military advisers. "The consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable," he said. "A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including IS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill." We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,' Trump said in a prime-time televised address at a military base outside Washington × The Republican president, who has criticised his predecessors for setting deadlines for drawing down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, declined to put a time line on expanded US military operations in Afghanistan. Trump now inherits the same challenges as predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama, including a stubborn Taliban insurgency and a weak, divided government in Kabul. He is laying the groundwork for greater US involvement without a clear end in sight or providing specific benchmarks for success. US officials said he had signed off on Defense Secretary James Mattis' plans to send about 4,000 more troops to add to the roughly 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan. Mattis said he had directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out the strategy and that he would be consulting with NATO and US allies, several of which had also committed to increasing troops. 'Not a Blank Check' Trump warned that US support "is not a blank check," and insisted he would not engage in "nation-building," a practice he has accused his predecessors of doing at huge cost. Through the speech, Trump insisted that others, the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies, step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict. Trump saved his sharpest words for Pakistan. "We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens," Trump said. "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor terrorists." Senior US officials warned he could reduce security assistance for Pakistan unless the nuclear-armed nation cooperates more in preventing militants from using safe havens on its soil. A Pakistani army spokesman said on Monday that Pakistan had taken action against all Islamist militants including the Haqqani network, which is allied to Afghan Taliban insurgents. "There are no terrorist hideouts in Pakistan. We have operated against all terrorists, including (the) Haqqani network," spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor told a media briefing in Islamabad. Obama also took Pakistan to task for supporting militants, and sent Navy SEALs into the country to kill al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. It remains to be seen if Trump's rhetoric will change Pakistan's calculations in Afghanistan, which it sees as a vital strategic interest. Trump expanded the US military's authority for American armed forces to target militant and criminal networks. He said that US enemies in Afghanistan "need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American arms." "Our troops will fight to win," he added. A US led coalition invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Islamist Taliban government for harboring al Qaeda militants who plotted the Sept. 11 attacks. But US forces have remained bogged down there through the presidencies of Bush, Obama and now Trump. About 2,400 US forces have died in Afghanistan since the invasion. Past Skeptism The speech came after a months-long review of US policy in which Trump frequently tangled with his top advisers on the future of US involvement in Afghanistan, where Taliban insurgents have been making territorial gains. US military and intelligence officials are concerned that a Taliban victory over Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State’s regional affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot attacks against the United States and its allies. "The unfortunate truth is that this strategy is long overdue and in the interim the Taliban has made dangerous inroads," said senior Republican Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Jack Reed, senior Democrat on the committee, criticised what he called a speech short on details. "President Trump now recognises the need to stabilise the situation and assist the government of Afghanistan to regain momentum. But he was very vague," Reed said. Trump suggested he was hoping for eventual peace talks, and said it might be possible to have a political settlement with elements of the Taliban. "But nobody knows if or when that will ever happen," he said. In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: "We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions." Trump overcame his own skepticism about the war that began in October 2001. He said repeatedly on the campaign trail last year that the war was too costly in lives and money. "My original instinct was to pull out," he said in his speech, but added he was convinced by his national security advisers to strengthen the US ability to prevent the Taliban from ousting the government in Kabul. Trump's speech came as the president tries to rebound after he was engulfed in controversy for saying both sides were to blame for violence between white supremacists and counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month. In an allusion to the Charlottesville uproar, Trump said: "We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other." US commanders have long planned for a possible shift in resources from Iraq to Afghanistan as the fight against Islamic State comes off its peak, following gains made in the Iraqi city of Mosul and other areas. One reason the White House decision took so long, two officials who participated in the discussions said on Sunday, is that it was difficult to get Trump to accept the need for a broader regional strategy that included US policy toward Pakistan. Trump received a wide range of conflicting options, the officials said. White House national security adviser HR McMaster and other advisers favored accepting a request for an 4,000 additional US forces. But recently ousted White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon had argued for the withdrawal of all US forces, saying the war was still not winnable, US officials said. Bannon was fired on Friday by Trump. Breitbart News, the hard-right news site to which Bannon has returned as executive chairman, said on its home page that Trump "reverses course" and "defends flip-flop in somber speech."

Reversing course, Trump commits to open-ended war in Afghanistan

The United States said on Monday it was sharply scaling back its visa services in Russia after Moscow cut the number of its diplomatic staff in retaliation over new US sanctions.

The US embassy in Russia said in a statement it was suspending all nonimmigrant visa operations across Russia on Aug. 23 and that they would resume on Sept. 1 &quot;on a greatly reduced scale.&quot;

The move means Russian citizens wanting to visit the United States for tourism will have to travel to Moscow and will no longer be able to&nbsp;use local US consulates outside the Russian capital.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, reacting to new sanctions imposed by the US Congress, has ordered Washington to cut its diplomatic and technical staff in Russia by 755 people by Sept. 1.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that a US decision to sharply scale back its visa services in Russia was an attempt to stir up ill-feeling among ordinary Russians against the authorities.

He added that Russia would carefully study the US decision and promised that Moscow would not take out its anger on ordinary US citizens.

US took the move after Moscow cut the number of its diplomatic staff in retaliation over new US sanctions

The United States said on Monday it was sharply scaling back its visa services in Russia after Moscow cut the number of its diplomatic staff in retaliation over new US sanctions. The US embassy in Russia said in a statement it was suspending all nonimmigrant visa operations across Russia on Aug. 23 and that they would resume on Sept. 1 "on a greatly reduced scale." The move means Russian citizens wanting to visit the United States for tourism will have to travel to Moscow and will no longer be able to use local US consulates outside the Russian capital. Russian President Vladimir Putin, reacting to new sanctions imposed by the US Congress, has ordered Washington to cut its diplomatic and technical staff in Russia by 755 people by Sept. 1. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that a US decision to sharply scale back its visa services in Russia was an attempt to stir up ill-feeling among ordinary Russians against the authorities. He added that Russia would carefully study the US decision and promised that Moscow would not take out its anger on ordinary US citizens.

US scales back visa services in Russia after diplomatic row

US President Donald Trump is eyeing Afghanistan&#39;s mineral wealth to help pay for a 16-year war and reconstruction efforts that have already cost $117 billion. Investors who have studied the country, one of the world&#39;s most dangerous, say that is a pipe dream.

Ever since a United States Geological Survey study a decade ago identified deposits later estimated to have a potential value of as much as $1 trillion, both Afghan and foreign officials have trumpeted the reserves as a likely key to economic independence for Afghanistan.

As well as deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, Afghanistan has significant quantities of iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and significant copper, a particular draw given the dearth of rich new copper mines globally.

Afghanistan, some reports say, even has the potential to become &quot;the Saudi Arabia of lithium&quot;, thanks to deposits of the raw material used in phone and electric car batteries.

But a lack of basic logistics, paved roads and rail links needed to export copper concentrate or iron ore, pervasive corruption, a messy bureaucracy and a growing insurgency that has left much of the country beyond the writ of the Kabul government have stifled attempts to build a legitimate mining sector.

Much of the basic data dates back to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. And the cost of having foreign geologists and engineers visit remote sites to carry out new surveys is prohibitive when nothing is yet being produced to pay for it.

&quot;There is no low-hanging fruit that could trigger rapid growth and foster self-sustaining development,&quot; said the government&#39;s own National Peace and Development Framework document, presented at last year&#39;s donor conference in Brussels.

Major projects such as the Mes Aynak copper mine, being developed by a Chinese consortium, remain at a standstill.

&quot;There is zero active mining and very little exploration, if any,&quot; says Leigh Fogelman, director at merchant bank Hannam &amp; Partners in London. The bank&#39;s founder, former JP Morgan rainmaker Ian Hannam, has been a longtime investor in Afghanistan through the Afghan Gold and Minerals Company (AGMC).

AGMC won the licence for another copper deposit, at Balkhab in northern Afghanistan, in 2012.

For the rest, resources have been prey to what William Byrd, a development economist with the United States Institute of Peace, has dubbed &quot;industrial-scale looting&quot;.

While small and medium-sized mines do exist, many are outside government control, profiting powerful local operators and depriving the treasury of what the government estimates at $300 million in unpaid taxes.

&quot;The big mining&nbsp;opportunities are just languishing and there&#39;s looting of smaller resources&nbsp;everywhere,&quot; Byrd said.

Great Game

As Afghan officials sought to raise interest in Afghanistan with the incoming US administration earlier this year, they pushed the idea of the mineral reserves.

&quot;President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan&#39;s economic potential,&quot; Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan&#39;s ambassador to Washington, told Reuters in June. &quot;Our estimated $1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare earth elements, aluminium, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium. That&#39;s new.&quot;

US officials have told Reuters that Trump argued at a White House meeting with advisors in July that the United States should demand a share of Afghanistan&#39;s mineral wealth in exchange for its assistance to the Afghan government.

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that Trump has made a decision on the United States&#39; strategy for Afghanistan after a review with national security advisors, but did not give any details.

It is easy to see why the mining sector has aroused so much interest in Afghanistan, a landlocked country with an economy worth about $20 billion a year, roughly half the size of Wyoming, the least populous US state.

But private investors are wary, says Fogelman, and there is no quick fix.

&quot;In the case of large, public sector investment, the situation would be different, however, there would still be the problem of building up logistics and export links,&quot; he said. &quot;I reckon it would still likely take years to get a meaningful large-scale operation going.&quot;

Even if private armies could be hired to defend the mines against insurgent attack, the cost of moving minerals out would likely be prohibitive until the entire country was secure, which could take many years.

One longtime mining expert formerly based in Kabul recounted his conversation with a top mining firm.

&quot;They said: &#39;Don&#39;t worry, we can bring our own security detail and do the mining operation&#39;. But, they said, &#39;How are we going to get this stuff out of the country?&#39;&quot;

According to a 2014 mining ministry study, some of Afghanistan&#39;s most promising deposits of lithium are in the eastern province of Ghazni and in the far southern region of Gowde Zereh in Helmand province, all areas largely under the control of the Taliban.

&quot;The idea that this will materialise in the near future and pay for the security sector&nbsp;budget is unrealistic,&quot; said Byrd.

Even without the war, mining is tough.

China acquired a 30-year lease on the Mes Aynak copper mine for around $3 billion in 2008 but, although the Taliban has explicitly declared that it will not target it, the project has been plagued by delays due to contractual wrangling.

Under a donor programme agreed in Tokyo in 2012, Afghanistan was supposed to be earning $1 billion a year from mining revenues by 2017 but expectations have been pulled back.

In the first 11 months of the last fiscal year, the government raised just $18 million from mining revenues and the government&#39;s own projections now do not see them exceeding the $1 billion mark before 2029.

That compares with security spending of $4.6 billion this year, equivalent to almost a quarter of the total budget.

&quot;It&#39;s illusory to think that minerals will save Afghanistan in any foreseeable future,&quot; said one senior Western diplomat in Kabul.

As well as deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, Afghanistan has significant quantities of iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and significant copper, a particular draw given the dearth of rich new copper mines globally

US President Donald Trump is eyeing Afghanistan's mineral wealth to help pay for a 16-year war and reconstruction efforts that have already cost $117 billion. Investors who have studied the country, one of the world's most dangerous, say that is a pipe dream. Ever since a United States Geological Survey study a decade ago identified deposits later estimated to have a potential value of as much as $1 trillion, both Afghan and foreign officials have trumpeted the reserves as a likely key to economic independence for Afghanistan. As well as deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, Afghanistan has significant quantities of iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and significant copper, a particular draw given the dearth of rich new copper mines globally. Afghanistan, some reports say, even has the potential to become "the Saudi Arabia of lithium", thanks to deposits of the raw material used in phone and electric car batteries. But a lack of basic logistics, paved roads and rail links needed to export copper concentrate or iron ore, pervasive corruption, a messy bureaucracy and a growing insurgency that has left much of the country beyond the writ of the Kabul government have stifled attempts to build a legitimate mining sector. Much of the basic data dates back to the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. And the cost of having foreign geologists and engineers visit remote sites to carry out new surveys is prohibitive when nothing is yet being produced to pay for it. "There is no low-hanging fruit that could trigger rapid growth and foster self-sustaining development," said the government's own National Peace and Development Framework document, presented at last year's donor conference in Brussels. Major projects such as the Mes Aynak copper mine, being developed by a Chinese consortium, remain at a standstill. "There is zero active mining and very little exploration, if any," says Leigh Fogelman, director at merchant bank Hannam & Partners in London. The bank's founder, former JP Morgan rainmaker Ian Hannam, has been a longtime investor in Afghanistan through the Afghan Gold and Minerals Company (AGMC). AGMC won the licence for another copper deposit, at Balkhab in northern Afghanistan, in 2012. For the rest, resources have been prey to what William Byrd, a development economist with the United States Institute of Peace, has dubbed "industrial-scale looting". While small and medium-sized mines do exist, many are outside government control, profiting powerful local operators and depriving the treasury of what the government estimates at $300 million in unpaid taxes. "The big mining opportunities are just languishing and there's looting of smaller resources everywhere," Byrd said. Great Game As Afghan officials sought to raise interest in Afghanistan with the incoming US administration earlier this year, they pushed the idea of the mineral reserves. "President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan's economic potential," Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters in June. "Our estimated $1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare earth elements, aluminium, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium. That's new." US officials have told Reuters that Trump argued at a White House meeting with advisors in July that the United States should demand a share of Afghanistan's mineral wealth in exchange for its assistance to the Afghan government. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that Trump has made a decision on the United States' strategy for Afghanistan after a review with national security advisors, but did not give any details. It is easy to see why the mining sector has aroused so much interest in Afghanistan, a landlocked country with an economy worth about $20 billion a year, roughly half the size of Wyoming, the least populous US state. But private investors are wary, says Fogelman, and there is no quick fix. "In the case of large, public sector investment, the situation would be different, however, there would still be the problem of building up logistics and export links," he said. "I reckon it would still likely take years to get a meaningful large-scale operation going." Even if private armies could be hired to defend the mines against insurgent attack, the cost of moving minerals out would likely be prohibitive until the entire country was secure, which could take many years. One longtime mining expert formerly based in Kabul recounted his conversation with a top mining firm. "They said: 'Don't worry, we can bring our own security detail and do the mining operation'. But, they said, 'How are we going to get this stuff out of the country?'" According to a 2014 mining ministry study, some of Afghanistan's most promising deposits of lithium are in the eastern province of Ghazni and in the far southern region of Gowde Zereh in Helmand province, all areas largely under the control of the Taliban. "The idea that this will materialise in the near future and pay for the security sector budget is unrealistic," said Byrd. Even without the war, mining is tough. China acquired a 30-year lease on the Mes Aynak copper mine for around $3 billion in 2008 but, although the Taliban has explicitly declared that it will not target it, the project has been plagued by delays due to contractual wrangling. Under a donor programme agreed in Tokyo in 2012, Afghanistan was supposed to be earning $1 billion a year from mining revenues by 2017 but expectations have been pulled back. In the first 11 months of the last fiscal year, the government raised just $18 million from mining revenues and the government's own projections now do not see them exceeding the $1 billion mark before 2029. That compares with security spending of $4.6 billion this year, equivalent to almost a quarter of the total budget. "It's illusory to think that minerals will save Afghanistan in any foreseeable future," said one senior Western diplomat in Kabul.

Trump eyeing Afghanistan's mineral wealth to pay for 16-year war

President Donald Trump&#39;s ouster of chief strategist Steve Bannon is unlikely to mark the abandonment of the administration&#39;s &quot;America First&quot; agenda that has unnerved investors and trade partners and split the White House into nationalist and globalist camps.

Within hours of leaving Trump&#39;s administration on Friday, Bannon was back at the helm of Breitbart News, the hard-right news site he ran before becoming the main architect of Trump&#39;s 2016 presidential campaign.

Bannon can now do more to further conservative causes because &quot;he can speak his mind&quot; without the constraints of working in the White House, Rick Weatherly, 61, a maintenance technician from the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said on Saturday.

Trump appeared to agree, tweeting: &quot;Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews ... maybe even better than ever before. Fake News needs the competition!&quot;

Bannon, 63, was instrumental in some of Trump&#39;s most contentious policies including the travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations, departure from the Paris climate accord and rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

He was no friend to the Republican political establishment and was loathed by liberals, but became a darling of some of the president&#39;s hard-line conservative supporters.

&quot;Trump will now have a great external ally,&quot; a source close to Bannon said on condition of anonymity. &quot;He will use his big hammer against the congressional leadership in support of the president&#39;s agenda.&quot;

Trump supporters in south Florida, Chicago and Colorado told Reuters that they were not concerned that Bannon&#39;s departure meant the president was distancing himself from policies he supported during last year&#39;s campaign.

&quot;I think Trump will be fine,&quot; said Bob Janda, a 67-year-old small business owner in Chicago.

Nor is Bannon likely to be distanced from Trump&#39;s ear, a White House official said on condition of anonymity.

&#39;Direct pipeline&#39;

Bannon joined a string of senior officials who have left the Trump administration in the past five weeks, leading to the appointment of retired Marine general John Kelly as the new White House chief of staff.

Kelly has succeeded in imposing some order on what had been a haphazard operation, but Bannon will still have &quot;a direct pipeline into the Oval Office with Breitbart, Twitter and the TV,&quot; the same White House official added.

&nbsp;&quot;My guess is he&#39;ll (Bannon) probably be more effective goading the president&nbsp;from outside, especially if the president feels boxed in by John Kelly&#39;s clean lines of authority and (national security adviser H.R.) McMaster&#39;s orderly processes,&quot; said Kori Schake, a research fellow at Stanford University&#39;s Hoover Institution who previously served in the White House.

&quot;Seems to me that&nbsp;Bannon was symptom not cause: The president seems to share his dark vision, revel in the&nbsp;support of people Bannon represents,&quot; Schake added.

Prior to joining the Trump campaign, Bannon had spearheaded Breitbart&#39;s shift into a forum for the &quot;alt-right,&quot; a loose online confederation of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites.

His departure capped a tumultuous week in which Trump was widely criticized for saying both sides were responsible for last weekend&#39;s violence at a Charlottesville, Virginia rally organized by neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Bannon told the conservative&nbsp;Weekly&nbsp;Standard&nbsp;on Friday that he would use Breitbart to attack opponents of the populist and nationalist agenda he championed, including establishment Republicans.

At the same time he appeared to suggest that his departure signaled a major shift for the Trump agenda. &quot;The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,&quot; Bannon said.

Defense policy is one area where Bannon could play a role from the outside.

While many of Trump&#39;s national security aides favor sending several thousand more troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgents have been regaining ground, Bannon argued for withdrawing the 8,400 U.S. personnel still there.

He also had advocated restraint in dealing with North Korea, rejecting the use of military force to solve the recent crisis.

&quot;There is a danger that if he continues to bang away on issues that appeal to Breitbart&#39;s audience but aren&#39;t going anywhere, Bannon risks splitting the administration&#39;s loose coalition of hard-right ideologues, traditional conservatives, and middle-of-the-road voters who didn&#39;t like Hillary Clinton,&quot; another Trump administration official said, also on condition of anonymity.

Bannon joined a string of senior officials who have left the Trump administration in the past five weeks, leading to the appointment of retired Marine general John Kelly as the new White House chief of staff

President Donald Trump's ouster of chief strategist Steve Bannon is unlikely to mark the abandonment of the administration's "America First" agenda that has unnerved investors and trade partners and split the White House into nationalist and globalist camps. Within hours of leaving Trump's administration on Friday, Bannon was back at the helm of Breitbart News, the hard-right news site he ran before becoming the main architect of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Bannon can now do more to further conservative causes because "he can speak his mind" without the constraints of working in the White House, Rick Weatherly, 61, a maintenance technician from the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said on Saturday. Trump appeared to agree, tweeting: "Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews ... maybe even better than ever before. Fake News needs the competition!" Bannon, 63, was instrumental in some of Trump's most contentious policies including the travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority nations, departure from the Paris climate accord and rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. He was no friend to the Republican political establishment and was loathed by liberals, but became a darling of some of the president's hard-line conservative supporters. "Trump will now have a great external ally," a source close to Bannon said on condition of anonymity. "He will use his big hammer against the congressional leadership in support of the president's agenda." Trump supporters in south Florida, Chicago and Colorado told Reuters that they were not concerned that Bannon's departure meant the president was distancing himself from policies he supported during last year's campaign. "I think Trump will be fine," said Bob Janda, a 67-year-old small business owner in Chicago. Nor is Bannon likely to be distanced from Trump's ear, a White House official said on condition of anonymity. 'Direct pipeline' Bannon joined a string of senior officials who have left the Trump administration in the past five weeks, leading to the appointment of retired Marine general John Kelly as the new White House chief of staff. Kelly has succeeded in imposing some order on what had been a haphazard operation, but Bannon will still have "a direct pipeline into the Oval Office with Breitbart, Twitter and the TV," the same White House official added. "My guess is he'll (Bannon) probably be more effective goading the president from outside, especially if the president feels boxed in by John Kelly's clean lines of authority and (national security adviser H.R.) McMaster's orderly processes," said Kori Schake, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who previously served in the White House. "Seems to me that Bannon was symptom not cause: The president seems to share his dark vision, revel in the support of people Bannon represents," Schake added. Prior to joining the Trump campaign, Bannon had spearheaded Breitbart's shift into a forum for the "alt-right," a loose online confederation of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites. His departure capped a tumultuous week in which Trump was widely criticized for saying both sides were responsible for last weekend's violence at a Charlottesville, Virginia rally organized by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Bannon told the conservative Weekly Standard on Friday that he would use Breitbart to attack opponents of the populist and nationalist agenda he championed, including establishment Republicans. At the same time he appeared to suggest that his departure signaled a major shift for the Trump agenda. "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over," Bannon said. Defense policy is one area where Bannon could play a role from the outside. While many of Trump's national security aides favor sending several thousand more troops to Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgents have been regaining ground, Bannon argued for withdrawing the 8,400 U.S. personnel still there. He also had advocated restraint in dealing with North Korea, rejecting the use of military force to solve the recent crisis. "There is a danger that if he continues to bang away on issues that appeal to Breitbart's audience but aren't going anywhere, Bannon risks splitting the administration's loose coalition of hard-right ideologues, traditional conservatives, and middle-of-the-road voters who didn't like Hillary Clinton," another Trump administration official said, also on condition of anonymity.

Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over: Steve Bannon

&nbsp;United States President Donald Trump wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan as he thinks that the Washington is being ripped off by Islamabad.

As per Foreign Policy report, US&nbsp;is considering to increase troop levels up to 15, 000 in Afghanistan as part of the new strategy, which also would change the US&nbsp;relationship with Pakistan significantly.

The report quoted a White House official as saying that &quot;the President thinks we&#39;re being ripped off by Pakistan. The president wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan. That&#39;s part of the strategy&quot;.

The report further said the Pentagon has already frozen support to Islamabad under the coalition support fund, which provides payments to Pakistan for supporting counterterrorism operations.

This move is being considered due to Pakistan&#39;s constant support to insurgent group Taliban. However, US&nbsp;wants to ensure the survival of the Afghan government by ending the war in the country by negotiating with the Taliban.

This move is triggered by Pakistan&#39;s insufficient actions against the Haqqani network, an insurgent group based in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said.

Currently, around 8400 US.soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan.

Terming Afghanistan issue as &#39;a mess&#39; that he took over from the previous administration; Trump had said that his administration is getting close to a decision on an updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis had also hinted that President Trump is &quot;very close&quot; to making a decision on the strategy.

&quot;We&#39;re sharpening each one of the options so you can see the pluses and minuses of each one so that there&#39;s no longer any new data you&#39;re going to get. Now [he can] just make the decision,&quot; Mattis said.

Earlier, reports had emerged that the US&nbsp;administration may consider outsourcing the war management in Afghanistan to a private firm. (ANI)

This move is reported;y being considered due to Pakistan's constant support to insurgent group Taliban

United States President Donald Trump wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan as he thinks that the Washington is being ripped off by Islamabad. As per Foreign Policy report, US is considering to increase troop levels up to 15, 000 in Afghanistan as part of the new strategy, which also would change the US relationship with Pakistan significantly. The report quoted a White House official as saying that "the President thinks we're being ripped off by Pakistan. The president wants to cut off all military aid to Pakistan. That's part of the strategy". The report further said the Pentagon has already frozen support to Islamabad under the coalition support fund, which provides payments to Pakistan for supporting counterterrorism operations. This move is being considered due to Pakistan's constant support to insurgent group Taliban. However, US wants to ensure the survival of the Afghan government by ending the war in the country by negotiating with the Taliban. This move is triggered by Pakistan's insufficient actions against the Haqqani network, an insurgent group based in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary James Mattis said. Currently, around 8400 US.soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan. Terming Afghanistan issue as 'a mess' that he took over from the previous administration; Trump had said that his administration is getting close to a decision on an updated strategy for the war in Afghanistan. US Defense Secretary James Mattis had also hinted that President Trump is "very close" to making a decision on the strategy. "We're sharpening each one of the options so you can see the pluses and minuses of each one so that there's no longer any new data you're going to get. Now [he can] just make the decision," Mattis said. Earlier, reports had emerged that the US administration may consider outsourcing the war management in Afghanistan to a private firm. (ANI)

Trump wants to 'cut all military aid to Pakistan', thinks Washington is being 'ripped off' by Islamabad: Report

President Donald Trump on Friday fired his chief strategist Steve&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;in the latest White House shake-up, removing a far-right architect of his 2016 election victory and a driving force behind his nationalist and anti-globalisation agenda.

Bannon&#39;s firing, a year and a day after Trump hired him as his campaign chief, put an abrupt end to the rabble-rousing political provocateur&#39;s tumultuous tenure in a White House riven with rivalries and back-stabbing during which he clashed with more-moderate factions.

He was instrumental in some of Trump&#39;s most contentious policy moves including the ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries, abandoning the Paris climate accord, tearing up international trade agreements and cracking down on illegal immigration. He was no friend of the Republican political establishment and was loathed by liberals but was a darling of some of the president&#39;s hard-line conservative supporters.

White House officials said Trump had told new Chief of Staff John Kelly to crack down on the bickering and infighting, and that&nbsp;Bannon&#39;s fate was sealed by comments published on Wednesday in the American Prospect liberal magazine in which he spoke of targeting his adversaries within the administration.

Trump, seven months into his presidency, has become increasingly isolated over his comments following white supremacist violence in the Virginia college town of Charlottesville last Saturday and his attacks on fellow Republicans. Some Republicans had even begun questioning Trump&#39;s capacity to govern.

As Trump came under fire from Republicans including two former presidents, and from business leaders and U.S. allies abroad, he faced mounting calls for&nbsp;Bannon&#39;s ouster. Critics had accusedBannon&nbsp;of harbouring anti-Semitic and white nationalist sentiments.

&quot;White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;have mutually agreed today would be Steve&#39;s last day,&quot; White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

Bannon&nbsp;returned to his post as executive chairman of right-wing Breitbart News on Friday afternoon, the website said. Prior to joining the Trump campaign, he had spearheaded Breitbart&#39;s shift into a forum for the &quot;alt-right,&quot; a loose online confederation of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Bannon&nbsp;said his departure from the White House signals a major shift for the Trump agenda. &quot;The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,&quot;&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;told the conservative Weekly Standard.

&quot;I just think his ability to get anything done - particularly the bigger things, like the wall, the bigger, broader things that we fought for, it&#39;s just gonna be that much harder,&quot;&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;said.

He said he would use Breitbart to attack opponents of the populist and nationalist agenda he championed, including establishment Republicans. &quot;I am definitely going to crush the opposition,&quot;Bannon&nbsp;said.

He became the latest key figure to abruptly depart a Trump White House that has been chaotic from its first days and already has lost a chief of staff, a national security adviser, two communications directors and a chief spokesman.

Trump&#39;s presidency also has been dogged by ongoing investigations in Congress and a special counsel named by the Justice Department into potential collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia, something both Trump and Moscow deny.

Bannon, 63, is a former U.S. Navy officer, Goldman Sachs investment banker and Hollywood movie producer.

He had been in a precarious position before but Trump opted to keep him, in part because he had played a major role in Trump&#39;s November 2016 election victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton and was backed by many of the president&#39;s most loyal rank-and-file supporters.

Democrats cheered&nbsp;Bannon&#39;s departure.

&quot;Steve&nbsp;Bannon&#39;s firing is welcome news,&quot; said Nancy Pelosi, the top House of Representatives Democrat. &quot;The Trump Administration must not only purge itself of the remaining white supremacists on staff, but abandon the bigoted ideology that clearly governs its decisions.&quot;

Markets react

Wall Street indexes &lt;.SPX&gt; and the U.S. dollar &lt;.DXY&gt; ended a volatile session lower after a week of drama in Washington intensified doubts about Trump&#39;s ability to deliver on policy objectives such as tax cuts. After a late-morning boost following reports of&nbsp;Bannon&#39;s ouster, the dollar and U.S. equities lost ground.

Bannon&nbsp;felt a close ideological connection to Trump&#39;s populist tendencies and &quot;America First&quot; message. Like Trump, he has also expressed deep scepticism concerning ongoing American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The decision to fire&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;could undermine Trump&#39;s support among far-right voters but might ease tensions within the White House and with party leaders. Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress but have been unable to pass major legislative goals including a healthcare overhaul.

Trump ran into trouble after saying anti-racism demonstrators in Charlottesville were as responsible for the violence as the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who instigated the protests, and that there were &quot;very fine people&quot; among both groups.

Those remarks sparked rebukes from fellow Republicans, top corporate executives and some close allies.

Bannon&#39;s departure removes a large source of friction on the White House staff, but does not herald a significant shift by Trump towards the centre on major policy issues, three administration officials said.

&quot;A good deal of what was attributed to&nbsp;Bannon, for example on China trade and restricting immigration, and the border wall, all came before&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;joined the campaign and would have happened without him,&quot; said one White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Bannon&nbsp;has been a hawk on China, urging a tougher line on trade to correct a huge trade imbalance and dismissive of recent efforts to try to elicit Beijing&#39;s help to rein in North Korea. In his comments to American Prospect,&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;said the United States was in an economic war with China.

A second official said the biggest winners from&nbsp;Bannon&rsquo;s departure are national security adviser H.R. McMaster; Gary Cohn, Trump&rsquo;s chief economic adviser; and Trump&rsquo;s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner.

Bannon&#39;s departure cast a cloud over the future of the group of allies he had brought into the White House, such as Sebastian Gorka.

Some conservative activists expressed disappointment in&nbsp;Bannon&#39;s ouster. Republicans were largely quiet, though moderate Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said she was glad&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;was out but that the administration &quot;must work to build bridges, not destroy them.&quot;

By the time Trump had hired&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;as campaign manager, the real estate magnate had already vanquished his Republican opponents for the party&#39;s presidential nomination.

Asked about&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;on Tuesday, Trump called him &quot;a friend of mine&quot; but downplayed his contribution to his election victory.

&quot;Mr.&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors and I won all the primaries. Mr.&nbsp;Bannon&nbsp;came on very much later than that. And I like him. He is a good man. He is not a racist,&quot; Trump said.

Far-right chief strategist Steve Bannon's dismissal comes as the White House reels from the fallout over Trump's response to a violent white supremacist rally

President Donald Trump on Friday fired his chief strategist Steve Bannon in the latest White House shake-up, removing a far-right architect of his 2016 election victory and a driving force behind his nationalist and anti-globalisation agenda. Bannon's firing, a year and a day after Trump hired him as his campaign chief, put an abrupt end to the rabble-rousing political provocateur's tumultuous tenure in a White House riven with rivalries and back-stabbing during which he clashed with more-moderate factions. He was instrumental in some of Trump's most contentious policy moves including the ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries, abandoning the Paris climate accord, tearing up international trade agreements and cracking down on illegal immigration. He was no friend of the Republican political establishment and was loathed by liberals but was a darling of some of the president's hard-line conservative supporters. White House officials said Trump had told new Chief of Staff John Kelly to crack down on the bickering and infighting, and that Bannon's fate was sealed by comments published on Wednesday in the American Prospect liberal magazine in which he spoke of targeting his adversaries within the administration. Trump, seven months into his presidency, has become increasingly isolated over his comments following white supremacist violence in the Virginia college town of Charlottesville last Saturday and his attacks on fellow Republicans. Some Republicans had even begun questioning Trump's capacity to govern. As Trump came under fire from Republicans including two former presidents, and from business leaders and U.S. allies abroad, he faced mounting calls for Bannon's ouster. Critics had accusedBannon of harbouring anti-Semitic and white nationalist sentiments. "White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement. Bannon returned to his post as executive chairman of right-wing Breitbart News on Friday afternoon, the website said. Prior to joining the Trump campaign, he had spearheaded Breitbart's shift into a forum for the "alt-right," a loose online confederation of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites. Bannon said his departure from the White House signals a major shift for the Trump agenda. "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over," Bannon told the conservative Weekly Standard. "I just think his ability to get anything done - particularly the bigger things, like the wall, the bigger, broader things that we fought for, it's just gonna be that much harder," Bannon said. He said he would use Breitbart to attack opponents of the populist and nationalist agenda he championed, including establishment Republicans. "I am definitely going to crush the opposition,"Bannon said. He became the latest key figure to abruptly depart a Trump White House that has been chaotic from its first days and already has lost a chief of staff, a national security adviser, two communications directors and a chief spokesman. Trump's presidency also has been dogged by ongoing investigations in Congress and a special counsel named by the Justice Department into potential collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia, something both Trump and Moscow deny. Bannon, 63, is a former U.S. Navy officer, Goldman Sachs investment banker and Hollywood movie producer. He had been in a precarious position before but Trump opted to keep him, in part because he had played a major role in Trump's November 2016 election victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton and was backed by many of the president's most loyal rank-and-file supporters. Democrats cheered Bannon's departure. "Steve Bannon's firing is welcome news," said Nancy Pelosi, the top House of Representatives Democrat. "The Trump Administration must not only purge itself of the remaining white supremacists on staff, but abandon the bigoted ideology that clearly governs its decisions." Markets react Wall Street indexes <.SPX> and the U.S. dollar <.DXY> ended a volatile session lower after a week of drama in Washington intensified doubts about Trump's ability to deliver on policy objectives such as tax cuts. After a late-morning boost following reports of Bannon's ouster, the dollar and U.S. equities lost ground. Bannon felt a close ideological connection to Trump's populist tendencies and "America First" message. Like Trump, he has also expressed deep scepticism concerning ongoing American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decision to fire Bannon could undermine Trump's support among far-right voters but might ease tensions within the White House and with party leaders. Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress but have been unable to pass major legislative goals including a healthcare overhaul. Trump ran into trouble after saying anti-racism demonstrators in Charlottesville were as responsible for the violence as the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who instigated the protests, and that there were "very fine people" among both groups. Those remarks sparked rebukes from fellow Republicans, top corporate executives and some close allies. Bannon's departure removes a large source of friction on the White House staff, but does not herald a significant shift by Trump towards the centre on major policy issues, three administration officials said. "A good deal of what was attributed to Bannon, for example on China trade and restricting immigration, and the border wall, all came before Bannon joined the campaign and would have happened without him," said one White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Bannon has been a hawk on China, urging a tougher line on trade to correct a huge trade imbalance and dismissive of recent efforts to try to elicit Beijing's help to rein in North Korea. In his comments to American Prospect, Bannon said the United States was in an economic war with China. A second official said the biggest winners from Bannon’s departure are national security adviser H.R. McMaster; Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief economic adviser; and Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner. Bannon's departure cast a cloud over the future of the group of allies he had brought into the White House, such as Sebastian Gorka. Some conservative activists expressed disappointment in Bannon's ouster. Republicans were largely quiet, though moderate Republican congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said she was glad Bannon was out but that the administration "must work to build bridges, not destroy them." By the time Trump had hired Bannon as campaign manager, the real estate magnate had already vanquished his Republican opponents for the party's presidential nomination. Asked about Bannon on Tuesday, Trump called him "a friend of mine" but downplayed his contribution to his election victory. "Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him. He is a good man. He is not a racist," Trump said.

Trump fires far-right chief strategist Steve Bannon

The ghostwriter who penned Donald Trump&#39;s 1987 memoir &quot;The Art of the Deal&quot; thinks the US president will throw in the towel before the end of his term.

Writer Tony Schwartz tweeted that &quot;Trump is going to resign&quot; before investigators probing alleged ties between the Republican&#39;s campaign team and Russia &quot;leave him no choice.&quot;

&quot;The circle is closing at blinding speed,&quot; the author tweeted. &quot;Trump is going to resign and declare victory before Mueller and congress leave him no choice.&quot;

&quot;Trump&#39;s presidency is effectively over,&quot; he said in a follow-up tweet. &quot;Would be amazed if he survives till end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner.&quot;

While writing Trump&#39;s best-selling breakthrough memoir Schwartz spent 18 months with the billionaire tycoon.

He spoke out last year against the real estate mogul during the presidential campaign, telling The New Yorker magazine that he put &quot;lipstick on a pig.&quot;

&quot;I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.&quot;

Writer Tony Schwartz tweeted that "Trump is going to resign" before investigators probing alleged ties between the Republican's campaign team and Russia "leave him no choice"

The ghostwriter who penned Donald Trump's 1987 memoir "The Art of the Deal" thinks the US president will throw in the towel before the end of his term. Writer Tony Schwartz tweeted that "Trump is going to resign" before investigators probing alleged ties between the Republican's campaign team and Russia "leave him no choice." "The circle is closing at blinding speed," the author tweeted. "Trump is going to resign and declare victory before Mueller and congress leave him no choice." "Trump's presidency is effectively over," he said in a follow-up tweet. "Would be amazed if he survives till end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner." While writing Trump's best-selling breakthrough memoir Schwartz spent 18 months with the billionaire tycoon. He spoke out last year against the real estate mogul during the presidential campaign, telling The New Yorker magazine that he put "lipstick on a pig." "I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is."

Trump memoir ghostwriter predicts US leader will resign

US stocks fell sharply Thursday following a deadly attack in Spain and amid rising concerns President Donald Trump may have endangered his economic agenda after alienating business leaders.&nbsp;

Investors also were rattled early Thursday by rumors White House economic advisor Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, could resign. A White House source denied this, however.

The investment bank was among the biggest losers on the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had its largest drop in three months and turned negative for the month.

The Dow dropped 1.2 per cent to finish at 21,750.73 and the broader S&amp;P 500 gave up 1.5 per cent to close at 2,430.01.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq suffered the biggest loss, sinking 1.9 per cent to close at 6,221.91.

After opening lower, stock losses accelerated shortly after 11 am after an attacker in Barcelona slammed a van into crowds on a popular tourist street, killing at least 13 people and injuring 50, authorities said.

Prior to the attack, investors already were fretting over news Trump had dissolved two business councils amid an exodus of CEOs seeking to distance themselves from the US president&#39;s heavily-criticised response to a white supremacy rally over the weekend.

Trump&#39;s agenda of tax cuts and infrastructure spending now faces a bitterly divided Congress with which he has repeatedly butted heads.

Disbanding the CEO advisory boards, &quot;created a lot of concerns for investors,&quot; said Adam Sarhan of 50 Park Investment.&nbsp;

&quot;This is the first time since Trump took office there is a disconnect between him and the business community.&quot;

Sarhan said previous political shocks, such as Republican failure to repeal the previous administration&#39;s health care laws or the nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea, had not directly affected economic policy.

&quot;This is the first time where we have a political event that directly impacts the economy. That is why stocks are selling off. It is not just noise.&quot;

Goldman Sachs fell 1.8 per cent and Cisco Systems was the Dow&#39;s biggest loser, tumbling by four per cent, after reporting disappointing earnings in its security business.

Apple fell 1.9 per cent, dragging down the S&amp;P and the Nasdaq, while Wal-Mart Stores lost 1.6 per cent after reporting a steep decline in profits despite posting a 60 per cent gain in internet sales and beating expectations on earnings per share.

The investment bank was among the biggest losers on the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had its largest drop in three months and turned negative for the month

US stocks fell sharply Thursday following a deadly attack in Spain and amid rising concerns President Donald Trump may have endangered his economic agenda after alienating business leaders. Investors also were rattled early Thursday by rumors White House economic advisor Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, could resign. A White House source denied this, however. The investment bank was among the biggest losers on the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had its largest drop in three months and turned negative for the month. The Dow dropped 1.2 per cent to finish at 21,750.73 and the broader S&P 500 gave up 1.5 per cent to close at 2,430.01. The tech-heavy Nasdaq suffered the biggest loss, sinking 1.9 per cent to close at 6,221.91. After opening lower, stock losses accelerated shortly after 11 am after an attacker in Barcelona slammed a van into crowds on a popular tourist street, killing at least 13 people and injuring 50, authorities said. Prior to the attack, investors already were fretting over news Trump had dissolved two business councils amid an exodus of CEOs seeking to distance themselves from the US president's heavily-criticised response to a white supremacy rally over the weekend. Trump's agenda of tax cuts and infrastructure spending now faces a bitterly divided Congress with which he has repeatedly butted heads. Disbanding the CEO advisory boards, "created a lot of concerns for investors," said Adam Sarhan of 50 Park Investment. "This is the first time since Trump took office there is a disconnect between him and the business community." Sarhan said previous political shocks, such as Republican failure to repeal the previous administration's health care laws or the nuclear brinkmanship with North Korea, had not directly affected economic policy. "This is the first time where we have a political event that directly impacts the economy. That is why stocks are selling off. It is not just noise." Goldman Sachs fell 1.8 per cent and Cisco Systems was the Dow's biggest loser, tumbling by four per cent, after reporting disappointing earnings in its security business. Apple fell 1.9 per cent, dragging down the S&P and the Nasdaq, while Wal-Mart Stores lost 1.6 per cent after reporting a steep decline in profits despite posting a 60 per cent gain in internet sales and beating expectations on earnings per share.

Wall Street tumbles on Spain terror, Trump policy worries

As communities across the United States redouble efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces after a far-right rally in Virginia turned deadly, city leaders now face another conundrum: what to do with the statues.

President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;described them on Thursday as &quot;beautiful statues and monuments,&quot; part of the history and culture of the country that will be &quot;greatly missed.&quot;

But they are seen by many Americans as symbols of racism and glorifications of the Confederate defense of slavery in the Civil War, fueling the debate over race and politics in America.

Cities are speeding up their removal since Saturday&#39;s rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a suspected white supremacist crashed a car into a crowd, killing one woman, during protests against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, who headed the Confederate army in the American Civil War.

Since Monday, officials in Baltimore and Gainesville, Florida, have taken down statues while another was torn from its plinth by protesters in Durham, North Carolina. Calls for more to be removed have grown louder.

This has created an additional headache for cities and spurred another debate: how to dispose of the statues once they are taken down.

Some have suggested museums, others putting them in Confederate cemeteries and one city councilman proposed using their metal to make likenesses of civil rights leaders.

&quot;Melting them down and using the materials to make monuments for Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman would be powerful!&quot; Baltimore city councilman Brandon Scott wrote on Twitter this week. The mayor&#39;s office said that was unlikely.

Unlike eastern Europe

The debate contrasts sharply with how Eastern Europe handled thousands of statues following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Often pulled down by angry mobs, some of the statues ended up in dumpsters and others in museums to teach people the evils of totalitarian regimes. In Budapest, a for-profit park hosts about 40 statues of communist heroes such as Karl Marx.

In the US South, the debate still rages between those nostalgic for the past and those who view the monuments as painful reminders of slavery.

There are more than 700 Confederate statues in the United States according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, most of them created in the 1910s and 1920s, decades after the Civil War ended. They were intended to reassert the power of white people, said Jonathan Leib, Chair of Political Science and Geography at Old Dominion University in Virginia.

&quot;They&#39;re visible, tangible expressions of power,&quot; he said on Thursday.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Mayor William Bell ordered workers to hide a Confederate statue behind plywood boards, while the city challenges a state law banning the removal of such monuments.

&quot;They represent acts of sedition against the United States of America and treason against the United State of America,&quot; he told Reuters on Wednesday.

But sympathies persist, as both lawmakers and citizens resist plans to remove them.

&quot;I absolutely disagree with this sanitization of history,&quot; Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, told WVHU radio on Tuesday.

Proper context

For now, many of the removed statues gather dust in warehouses or, as in the case of New Orleans, sit disassembled in a city scrap yard, where two were found by local reporters.

In Baltimore, statues are now in storage, according to the mayor&#39;s spokesman Anthony McCarthy, who said they will likely end up in a Confederate cemetery or a museum.

Many&nbsp;city legislators have expressed&nbsp;interest in&nbsp;relocating&nbsp;statues to museums, where they might be viewed as historical artifacts and not rallying points for racism.

Anna Lopez Brosche, city council president in Jacksonville, Florida, encouraged the removal of Confederate statues from public property&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;and proposed placing them where they will be &quot;historically contextualized.&quot;

In Lexington, Kentucky, Mayor Jim Gray has proposed removing statues from one city park, formerly the site of a slave auction block and whipping post.

Meanwhile, a statue removed in Gainesville, Florida,&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;is being returned to a local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which erected it in 1904.&nbsp;

The group, founded in 1894 by women descended from Confederate soldiers, put up many of the statues as part of their goal to display what they call &quot;a truthful history&quot; of the Civil War and mark places &quot;made historic by Confederate valor.&quot;

Some historians argue that, as in Eastern Europe, the Confederate monuments should be preserved, but in the proper context.

&quot;A slave whipping post isn&#39;t something we want up, just out in public without interpretation,&quot; said W. Fitzhugh Brundage, American History professor at the University of North Carolina.

&quot;But on the other hand, if you have it in the Smithsonian where people can see it and it can be properly interpreted, it&#39;s a valuable teaching tool.&quot;

Since Monday, officials in Baltimore and Gainesville, Florida, have taken down statues while another was torn from its plinth by protesters in Durham, North Carolina. Calls for more to be removed have grown louder

As communities across the United States redouble efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces after a far-right rally in Virginia turned deadly, city leaders now face another conundrum: what to do with the statues. President Donald Trump described them on Thursday as "beautiful statues and monuments," part of the history and culture of the country that will be "greatly missed." But they are seen by many Americans as symbols of racism and glorifications of the Confederate defense of slavery in the Civil War, fueling the debate over race and politics in America. Cities are speeding up their removal since Saturday's rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a suspected white supremacist crashed a car into a crowd, killing one woman, during protests against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, who headed the Confederate army in the American Civil War. Since Monday, officials in Baltimore and Gainesville, Florida, have taken down statues while another was torn from its plinth by protesters in Durham, North Carolina. Calls for more to be removed have grown louder. This has created an additional headache for cities and spurred another debate: how to dispose of the statues once they are taken down. Some have suggested museums, others putting them in Confederate cemeteries and one city councilman proposed using their metal to make likenesses of civil rights leaders. "Melting them down and using the materials to make monuments for Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman would be powerful!" Baltimore city councilman Brandon Scott wrote on Twitter this week. The mayor's office said that was unlikely. Unlike eastern Europe The debate contrasts sharply with how Eastern Europe handled thousands of statues following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Often pulled down by angry mobs, some of the statues ended up in dumpsters and others in museums to teach people the evils of totalitarian regimes. In Budapest, a for-profit park hosts about 40 statues of communist heroes such as Karl Marx. In the US South, the debate still rages between those nostalgic for the past and those who view the monuments as painful reminders of slavery. There are more than 700 Confederate statues in the United States according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, most of them created in the 1910s and 1920s, decades after the Civil War ended. They were intended to reassert the power of white people, said Jonathan Leib, Chair of Political Science and Geography at Old Dominion University in Virginia. "They're visible, tangible expressions of power," he said on Thursday. In Birmingham, Alabama, Mayor William Bell ordered workers to hide a Confederate statue behind plywood boards, while the city challenges a state law banning the removal of such monuments. "They represent acts of sedition against the United States of America and treason against the United State of America," he told Reuters on Wednesday. But sympathies persist, as both lawmakers and citizens resist plans to remove them. "I absolutely disagree with this sanitization of history," Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, told WVHU radio on Tuesday. Proper context For now, many of the removed statues gather dust in warehouses or, as in the case of New Orleans, sit disassembled in a city scrap yard, where two were found by local reporters. In Baltimore, statues are now in storage, according to the mayor's spokesman Anthony McCarthy, who said they will likely end up in a Confederate cemetery or a museum. Many city legislators have expressed interest in relocating statues to museums, where they might be viewed as historical artifacts and not rallying points for racism. Anna Lopez Brosche, city council president in Jacksonville, Florida, encouraged the removal of Confederate statues from public property on Monday and proposed placing them where they will be "historically contextualized." In Lexington, Kentucky, Mayor Jim Gray has proposed removing statues from one city park, formerly the site of a slave auction block and whipping post. Meanwhile, a statue removed in Gainesville, Florida, on Monday is being returned to a local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which erected it in 1904. The group, founded in 1894 by women descended from Confederate soldiers, put up many of the statues as part of their goal to display what they call "a truthful history" of the Civil War and mark places "made historic by Confederate valor." Some historians argue that, as in Eastern Europe, the Confederate monuments should be preserved, but in the proper context. "A slave whipping post isn't something we want up, just out in public without interpretation," said W. Fitzhugh Brundage, American History professor at the University of North Carolina. "But on the other hand, if you have it in the Smithsonian where people can see it and it can be properly interpreted, it's a valuable teaching tool."

US cities wrestle with Confederate statues' fate

On Aug. 16, representatives of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico formally begin renegotiating the <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">North American Free Trade Agreement</a> (NAFTA), an accord that has governed matters of trade and security on the continent for 23 years.

President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/4f4c269e-2b68-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7">has repeatedly threatened</a> to withdraw the United States from NAFTA and similar trade agreements if other nations are unwilling to renegotiate to terms he likes.

Whether you agree with him or not, his threat to unilaterally back out of NAFTA and other trade deals on his hit list may be a hollow one for a simple reason: the U.S. Constitution.

Our country&rsquo;s founding document places limits on a president&rsquo;s ability to cease complying with the provisions of a U.S. trade agreement &ndash; absent congressional approval.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/182152/width754/file-20170815-5485-1erllzn.jpg" />
<figcaption>
President Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto at the G20 Summit in Hamburg in July.&nbsp;

A perfect negotiating strategy
</figcaption>
</figure>

The U.S. recently <a href="https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/NAFTAObjectives.pdf">released its objectives</a> for renegotiating NAFTA. The threat to withdraw if those objectives are not met is an element of the U.S. negotiating strategy that deserves attention.

President Trump comes to the table after repeatedly declaring his intention to scrap NAFTA <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-nafta-tpp-trade-speech-2016-6">during the campaign</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/26/trump-close-to-notifying-canada-mexico-of-intent-to-withdraw-from-nafta/">reportedly going as far as</a> to prepare an executive order in April to begin withdrawal.

Despite the apparent change of heart, he insists that <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/27/remarks-president-trump-meeting-president-macri-argentina">he stands prepared</a> to terminate NAFTA if he is &ldquo;unable to make a fair deal.&rdquo;

Although NAFTA has been the main target of Trump&rsquo;s displeasure, it&rsquo;s not the only one.

The president <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-southkorea-idINKBN17U0B2">said roughly the same thing</a> about the <a href="https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta">U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement</a> (known as KORUS), declaring that &ldquo;we are going to renegotiate that deal or terminate it.&rdquo;

From a negotiating standpoint, threatening to withdraw makes perfect sense. If the United States isn&rsquo;t willing to opt out of a trade deal, other nations have little incentive to offer a better one. The issue is murkier, however, from a legal perspective.

The Constitution is oddly silent on the question of how the United States ends its international commitments. Most foreign relations lawyers believe that the president has the authority to withdraw from treaties <a href="http://www.thealiadviser.org/us-foreign-relations-law/authority-suspend-terminate-withdraw-treaties/">without congressional consent</a>, and presidents of both parties have acted on that basis.

But trade agreements are different from, say, defense agreements, where the courts have declined to restrain the president&rsquo;s unilateral termination power. The Constitution plainly assigns power over the policy areas covered by trade agreements &ndash; foreign trade and tariffs (taxes levied on imported goods) &ndash; to Congress, not the president.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/182146/width754/file-20170815-21358-1uqar2v.jpg" />
<figcaption>
This photo made available by the U.S. National Archives shows a portion of the first page of the United States Constitution.

Constitutional limits
</figcaption>
</figure>

Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution <a href="http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8">provides</a> that &ldquo;Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises&rdquo; and &ldquo;regulate commerce with foreign Nations.&rdquo; Congress uses these powers to pass legislation that translates each trade agreement into federal law.

To be sure, since the 1930s Congress <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44707.pdf">has used these laws</a> to delegate responsibility for setting tariffs to the president. The <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr3450">NAFTA Implementation Act</a>, for example, is a federal law that grants the president the authority to set tariffs in accordance with the terms of NAFTA.

But even if the United States were no longer bound by NAFTA as an international agreement, the NAFTA Implementation Act would remain on the books unless Congress repealed it. The president would thus likely still be bound by federal law to set tariffs that complied with NAFTA.

If NAFTA ceased to exist, wouldn&rsquo;t the legislation that assumes NAFTA is in place also lose its force? The legislation implementing more recent free trade agreements says as much explicitly. For example, the statute that implements KORUS states that it <a href="https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ41/PLAW-112publ41.pdf">&ldquo;shall cease to have effect&rdquo;</a> on the date that KORUS itself terminates.

The thing is, the Supreme Court has held this kind of provision unconstitutional. In <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1374.ZS.html">Clinton v. New York</a>, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot delegate to the president the authority to unilaterally repeal a statute. That case struck down the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/13/us/us-judge-rules-line-item-veto-act-unconstitutional.html">Line Item Veto Act</a>, which allowed the president sign a bill into law but then unilaterally &ldquo;cancels&rdquo; individual spending measures within the new law.

The same logic should apply to trade agreements. The president may very well be able to withdraw from international agreements like NAFTA and KORUS without further congressional authorisation. But the president cannot constitutionally ignore or cancel the domestic laws passed by Congress simply by withdrawing from an international commitment.

In other words, even if the United States leaves NAFTA, the president will still be bound to implement the agreement&rsquo;s rules on the terms dictated by Congress until Congress says otherwise.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/untitled%20design%20(93)-20170817052630.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The Supreme Court, including newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, back right, has taken a dim view of the congressional delegation. (Others)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Doubts on delegation

President Trump might have another problem too.

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to set tariffs and govern foreign commerce. Congress, in turn, usually delegates this authority to set tariff rates to the president. The constitutional <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/scotus-for-law-students-non-delegation-doctrine-returns-after-long-hiatus/">&ldquo;nondelegation doctrine</a>,&rdquo; however, requires that Congress establish standards to guide the president&rsquo;s choices when he exercises delegated authority.

A growing number of judges and commentators have urged the courts to more strictly enforce the <a href="http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2017/06/8.-Kritikos.pdf">nondelegation doctrine</a>. Most notably, President Trump&rsquo;s appointee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch (for whom, in full disclosure, I clerked), has expressed skepticism about the breadth of some <a href="http://library.law.virginia.edu/gorsuchproject/u-s-v-nichols/">congressional delegations</a>.

Requiring that tariffs (or other trade policies) be set in accordance with trade agreements like NAFTA satisfies the nondelegation doctrine. But if the president can evade the standards Congress has imposed by withdrawing from trade agreements, then arguably Congress has violated the Constitution by failing to sufficiently constrain the president&rsquo;s authority.

In other words, laws like the NAFTA Implementation Act that implement trade agreements could be unconstitutional if the president were free to ignore them. To avoid this constitutional problem, courts would likely require that Congress act before the president can cease complying with the laws that implement U.S. trade agreements.

A better strategy

President Trump, of course, has other tools at his disposal to increase pressure on our trading partners to renegotiate trade deals.

He can use the rules and institutions of trade agreements themselves to challenge unlawful trade practices, as the administration has already announced <a href="http://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/518026293/trump-trade-agenda-looks-past-wto">it intends to do</a> at the World Trade Organization.

But if he is serious about the threat of withdrawal, the president&rsquo;s best strategy may be to seek legislation authorising him to retaliate against our trading partners if negotiations are not successful.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81444/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />That legislation may be difficult to get through a Congress that is generally pro-free trade. But elements in both parties seem to have an appetite for rethinking what trade agreements should look like. And the president has defied expectations before.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-threat-to-withdraw-from-nafta-may-hit-a-hurdle-the-us-constitution-81444">original article</a>.

Withdrawal from NAFTA to harm U.S. trade agreement

On Aug. 16, representatives of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico formally begin renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an accord that has governed matters of trade and security on the continent for 23 years. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw the United States from NAFTA and similar trade agreements if other nations are unwilling to renegotiate to terms he likes. Whether you agree with him or not, his threat to unilaterally back out of NAFTA and other trade deals on his hit list may be a hollow one for a simple reason: the U.S. Constitution. Our country’s founding document places limits on a president’s ability to cease complying with the provisions of a U.S. trade agreement – absent congressional approval. President Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto at the G20 Summit in Hamburg in July. A perfect negotiating strategy The U.S. recently released its objectives for renegotiating NAFTA. The threat to withdraw if those objectives are not met is an element of the U.S. negotiating strategy that deserves attention. President Trump comes to the table after repeatedly declaring his intention to scrap NAFTA during the campaign and reportedly going as far as to prepare an executive order in April to begin withdrawal. Despite the apparent change of heart, he insists that he stands prepared to terminate NAFTA if he is “unable to make a fair deal.” Although NAFTA has been the main target of Trump’s displeasure, it’s not the only one. The president said roughly the same thing about the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (known as KORUS), declaring that “we are going to renegotiate that deal or terminate it.” From a negotiating standpoint, threatening to withdraw makes perfect sense. If the United States isn’t willing to opt out of a trade deal, other nations have little incentive to offer a better one. The issue is murkier, however, from a legal perspective. The Constitution is oddly silent on the question of how the United States ends its international commitments. Most foreign relations lawyers believe that the president has the authority to withdraw from treaties without congressional consent, and presidents of both parties have acted on that basis. But trade agreements are different from, say, defense agreements, where the courts have declined to restrain the president’s unilateral termination power. The Constitution plainly assigns power over the policy areas covered by trade agreements – foreign trade and tariffs (taxes levied on imported goods) – to Congress, not the president. This photo made available by the U.S. National Archives shows a portion of the first page of the United States Constitution. Constitutional limits Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign Nations.” Congress uses these powers to pass legislation that translates each trade agreement into federal law. To be sure, since the 1930s Congress has used these laws to delegate responsibility for setting tariffs to the president. The NAFTA Implementation Act, for example, is a federal law that grants the president the authority to set tariffs in accordance with the terms of NAFTA. But even if the United States were no longer bound by NAFTA as an international agreement, the NAFTA Implementation Act would remain on the books unless Congress repealed it. The president would thus likely still be bound by federal law to set tariffs that complied with NAFTA. If NAFTA ceased to exist, wouldn’t the legislation that assumes NAFTA is in place also lose its force? The legislation implementing more recent free trade agreements says as much explicitly. For example, the statute that implements KORUS states that it “shall cease to have effect” on the date that KORUS itself terminates. The thing is, the Supreme Court has held this kind of provision unconstitutional. In Clinton v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot delegate to the president the authority to unilaterally repeal a statute. That case struck down the Line Item Veto Act, which allowed the president sign a bill into law but then unilaterally “cancels” individual spending measures within the new law. The same logic should apply to trade agreements. The president may very well be able to withdraw from international agreements like NAFTA and KORUS without further congressional authorisation. But the president cannot constitutionally ignore or cancel the domestic laws passed by Congress simply by withdrawing from an international commitment. In other words, even if the United States leaves NAFTA, the president will still be bound to implement the agreement’s rules on the terms dictated by Congress until Congress says otherwise. The Supreme Court, including newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, back right, has taken a dim view of the congressional delegation. (Others) × Doubts on delegation President Trump might have another problem too. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to set tariffs and govern foreign commerce. Congress, in turn, usually delegates this authority to set tariff rates to the president. The constitutional “nondelegation doctrine,” however, requires that Congress establish standards to guide the president’s choices when he exercises delegated authority. A growing number of judges and commentators have urged the courts to more strictly enforce the nondelegation doctrine. Most notably, President Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch (for whom, in full disclosure, I clerked), has expressed skepticism about the breadth of some congressional delegations. Requiring that tariffs (or other trade policies) be set in accordance with trade agreements like NAFTA satisfies the nondelegation doctrine. But if the president can evade the standards Congress has imposed by withdrawing from trade agreements, then arguably Congress has violated the Constitution by failing to sufficiently constrain the president’s authority. In other words, laws like the NAFTA Implementation Act that implement trade agreements could be unconstitutional if the president were free to ignore them. To avoid this constitutional problem, courts would likely require that Congress act before the president can cease complying with the laws that implement U.S. trade agreements. A better strategy President Trump, of course, has other tools at his disposal to increase pressure on our trading partners to renegotiate trade deals. He can use the rules and institutions of trade agreements themselves to challenge unlawful trade practices, as the administration has already announced it intends to do at the World Trade Organization. But if he is serious about the threat of withdrawal, the president’s best strategy may be to seek legislation authorising him to retaliate against our trading partners if negotiations are not successful. That legislation may be difficult to get through a Congress that is generally pro-free trade. But elements in both parties seem to have an appetite for rethinking what trade agreements should look like. And the president has defied expectations before. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Trump's withdrawal from NAFTA may not happen because of the US Constitution

donald-trump

Donald Trump, News on Donald Trump, stories on Donald Trump, articles on Donald Trump, Donald Trump stories at Wion, Donald Trump news, Donald Trump latest news

donald trump