President Donald Trump issued the first veto of his presidency on Friday to block a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-senate-republican-delivers-blow-to-trump-border-emergency-203207">measure passed by Democrats and Republicans</a> in Congress that would terminate his emergency declaration for a wall on the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-declares-us-mexico-border-emergency-democrats-protest-197678">US border with Mexico</a>.

The veto, made necessary after a strong and unusual rebuke from members of Trump's Republican party, capped a week that left Trump politically wounded, at least temporarily, as immigration and his signature promise of a wall become a flashpoint again in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Congress is unlikely to muster the votes to override Trump's veto, a fact that left White House officials confident despite disappointment that it passed the Republican-controlled Senate at all.

The bipartisan vote on Thursday was a slap at Trump for his decision to circumvent Congress and take money already designated for other programs to pay for a barrier on the southern border.

Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate to pass the measure, concerned that the president had overstepped his authority.

Trump repeated his view that a crisis existed at the border, called the resolution reckless and said he was proud to veto it.

"As president the protection of the nation is my highest duty. Yesterday, Congress passed a dangerous resolution that if signed into law would put countless Americans in danger, very grave danger," he said, sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office. "Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution, and I have the duty to veto it."

The White House had lobbied heavily for Republicans to back Trump, despite concerns among some about executive overreach and precedent-setting action that a future Democratic president could copy on policies that Republicans oppose. The president, without acknowledging that lobbying, said he had sympathy for those who defied him, adding they did what they had to do.

US Attorney General William Barr said the president's emergency declaration was legal.

It is being challenged in court as an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' power of the purse.

Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said her chamber would vote on March 26 to override the veto.

“The House and Senate resoundingly rejected the president’s lawless power grab, yet the president has chosen to continue to defy the Constitution, the Congress and the will of the American people," she said in a statement.

The Senate would have to vote to override the veto as well, requiring more Republicans than the original 12 to sign on, which is unlikely to happen.

Trump was flanked by border officials and people whose relatives were killed by someone who was in the United States illegally. They praised the president for standing firm on the issue, which resonates strongly with his political base.

Researchers have said that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, despite Trump repeatedly linking immigration and crime.

The president has said he wants a wall to prevent immigrants from crossing into the United States illegally. Democrats deny there is an emergency at the border, saying border crossings are at a four-decade low.

Trump thanked Republican senators who voted for his declaration in a Twitter post earlier on Friday. "Watch, when you get back to your State, they will LOVE you more than ever before!" he said.

Trump made a border wall a central promise of his 2016 campaign for the White House. He initially insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall but it has declined to do so. Last year, Trump forced a government shutdown over an impasse with Congress over funding for the barrier.

When a deal to prevent another shutdown did not give him the funding he requested, Trump declared a national emergency, redirecting funds that were allocated for other projects to build the barrier instead.

President Donald Trump issued the first veto of his presidency on Friday to block a measure passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress that would terminate his emergency declaration for a wall on the US border with Mexico.

President Donald Trump issued the first veto of his presidency on Friday to block a measure passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress that would terminate his emergency declaration for a wall on the US border with Mexico. The veto, made necessary after a strong and unusual rebuke from members of Trump's Republican party, capped a week that left Trump politically wounded, at least temporarily, as immigration and his signature promise of a wall become a flashpoint again in the 2020 presidential campaign. Congress is unlikely to muster the votes to override Trump's veto, a fact that left White House officials confident despite disappointment that it passed the Republican-controlled Senate at all. The bipartisan vote on Thursday was a slap at Trump for his decision to circumvent Congress and take money already designated for other programs to pay for a barrier on the southern border. Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate to pass the measure, concerned that the president had overstepped his authority. Trump repeated his view that a crisis existed at the border, called the resolution reckless and said he was proud to veto it. "As president the protection of the nation is my highest duty. Yesterday, Congress passed a dangerous resolution that if signed into law would put countless Americans in danger, very grave danger," he said, sitting behind his desk in the Oval Office. "Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution, and I have the duty to veto it." The White House had lobbied heavily for Republicans to back Trump, despite concerns among some about executive overreach and precedent-setting action that a future Democratic president could copy on policies that Republicans oppose. The president, without acknowledging that lobbying, said he had sympathy for those who defied him, adding they did what they had to do. US Attorney General William Barr said the president's emergency declaration was legal. It is being challenged in court as an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress' power of the purse. Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said her chamber would vote on March 26 to override the veto. “The House and Senate resoundingly rejected the president’s lawless power grab, yet the president has chosen to continue to defy the Constitution, the Congress and the will of the American people," she said in a statement. The Senate would have to vote to override the veto as well, requiring more Republicans than the original 12 to sign on, which is unlikely to happen. Trump was flanked by border officials and people whose relatives were killed by someone who was in the United States illegally. They praised the president for standing firm on the issue, which resonates strongly with his political base. Researchers have said that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, despite Trump repeatedly linking immigration and crime. The president has said he wants a wall to prevent immigrants from crossing into the United States illegally. Democrats deny there is an emergency at the border, saying border crossings are at a four-decade low. Trump thanked Republican senators who voted for his declaration in a Twitter post earlier on Friday. "Watch, when you get back to your State, they will LOVE you more than ever before!" he said. Trump made a border wall a central promise of his 2016 campaign for the White House. He initially insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall but it has declined to do so. Last year, Trump forced a government shutdown over an impasse with Congress over funding for the barrier. When a deal to prevent another shutdown did not give him the funding he requested, Trump declared a national emergency, redirecting funds that were allocated for other projects to build the barrier instead.

Trump vetoes measure to end his emergency declaration on border wall

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-second-brexit-referendum-would-be-very-unfair-203380">President Donald Trump </a>suffered an embarrassing defeat Thursday at the hands of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/defying-trump-senate-votes-to-end-us-support-for-yemen-war-203188">US senators</a>, including fellow Republicans, who voted to terminate his declaration of an emergency on the border with Mexico.

Trump's response was swift and unequivocal, "VETO!" he tweeted after a dozen Republicans joined Democrats in voting down the emergency, declared as a way to secure alternative funding for the border wall denied to him by Congress.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
VETO!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1106272915488686080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I look forward to VETOING the just passed Democrat inspired Resolution which would OPEN BORDERS while increasing Crime, Drugs, and Trafficking in our Country. I thank all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1106279613431508992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Opponents had argued that Trump's emergency amounted to executive overreach, saying a vote to curtail his authority would preserve the constitutionally mandated separation of powers in Washington.

Half a dozen Republicans had already spoken out publicly against the February declaration. But on the morning of the vote, the simmering revolt grew to 12 Republicans, and the final tally was a resounding 59 to 41.

Trump had made clear he planned to use his veto powers to override any congressional block, after failing to strong-arm enough Republicans into line.

"I look forward to VETOING the just passed Democrat inspired Resolution which would OPEN BORDERS while increasing Crime, Drugs, and Trafficking in our Country," he tweeted, following up on his initial one-word response.

"I thank all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL!"

Unless there is a substantial weakening of support for Trump among congressional Republicans on the issue, the first veto of his presidency is expected to stand.

The Senate and House of Representatives would each need a two-thirds majority to override a block by the White House, and both parties say the numbers are not likely there. &nbsp;

"It won't be overturned and the legal scholars say it's totally constitutional," Trump told reporters of his emergency.

'Don't vote with Pelosi!'

Trump argues the move allows him to skirt Congress and repurpose billions of dollars in other government funds, including money earmarked for military facilities.

But Democrats and some Republicans point to Congress's constitutional duty to control government purse strings -- and say declaring an emergency to seize more money is an abuse of executive authority.

Senator Mitt Romney, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, opposed Trump on the declaration, saying he cast his vote "for the constitution and for the balance of power that is at its core."

A group of Republicans had sought to limit defections by cutting a deal with the president to rein in emergency declaration powers, but Trump refused.

He set the stage for the showdown by using now-familiar pressure tactics, unsuccessfully warning Republicans not to rebuke him on the emergency.

"Don't vote with Pelosi!" he boomed on Twitter early Thursday, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whose Democratic-led chamber had already approved the resolution.

Pelosi, who lunched with Trump and the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar at the US Capitol two hours before the critical Senate vote, had urged the upper chamber to "reject the president's unconstitutional measure."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed support for Trump as he sought to rally his troops.

"The president is operating within existing law, and the crisis on our border is all too real," McConnell said, citing rising numbers of border detentions.

'Judgment of history'

But the chamber's top Democrat couched it as a power grab by an unrestrained president acting out of "pique."

"It's our job, here in Congress, to limit executive overreach, to defend our core powers" of controlling how federal dollars are spent, Senator Chuck Schumer said.

"This is not an everyday moment," he added. "The judgment of history weighs on this vote."

Numerous Senate Republicans, including some who sided with Trump Thursday, have called for a narrowing of parameters of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, under whose authority Trump and other presidents have acted in declaring their emergencies.

"I think that law is overly broad and I want to fix it," Senator Ben Sasse said. "But at present Nancy Pelosi doesn't, so I am therefore voting against her politically motivated resolution."

The White House laid out an ambitious 2020 budget proposal Monday which contains $8.6 billion in new wall funding, considerably above the $5.7 billion Trump sought for this year.

Lawmakers are unlikely to go along. Congress recently provided just $1.4 billion for construction of 55 miles (90 kilometres) of barriers along the border in Texas.&nbsp;

The White House has signalled it will seek to repurpose some $6 billion from military funds, without specifying which Pentagon programs would be slashed.

But re-apportioning military money is a prickly undertaking, and several lawmakers from both parties have warned against it.

Thursday's vote was the second bipartisan rebuke of Trump in as many days, after the Senate Wednesday voted to end US military support for the Saudi-led war effort in Yemen.&nbsp;

Trump has threatened to veto that measure too.

President Donald Trump suffered an embarrassing defeat Thursday at the hands of US senators, including fellow Republicans, who voted to terminate his declaration of an emergency on the border with Mexico.

President Donald Trump suffered an embarrassing defeat Thursday at the hands of US senators, including fellow Republicans, who voted to terminate his declaration of an emergency on the border with Mexico. Trump's response was swift and unequivocal, "VETO!" he tweeted after a dozen Republicans joined Democrats in voting down the emergency, declared as a way to secure alternative funding for the border wall denied to him by Congress. VETO! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 14, 2019 × I look forward to VETOING the just passed Democrat inspired Resolution which would OPEN BORDERS while increasing Crime, Drugs, and Trafficking in our Country. I thank all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 14, 2019 × Opponents had argued that Trump's emergency amounted to executive overreach, saying a vote to curtail his authority would preserve the constitutionally mandated separation of powers in Washington. Half a dozen Republicans had already spoken out publicly against the February declaration. But on the morning of the vote, the simmering revolt grew to 12 Republicans, and the final tally was a resounding 59 to 41. Trump had made clear he planned to use his veto powers to override any congressional block, after failing to strong-arm enough Republicans into line. "I look forward to VETOING the just passed Democrat inspired Resolution which would OPEN BORDERS while increasing Crime, Drugs, and Trafficking in our Country," he tweeted, following up on his initial one-word response. "I thank all of the Strong Republicans who voted to support Border Security and our desperately needed WALL!" Unless there is a substantial weakening of support for Trump among congressional Republicans on the issue, the first veto of his presidency is expected to stand. The Senate and House of Representatives would each need a two-thirds majority to override a block by the White House, and both parties say the numbers are not likely there. "It won't be overturned and the legal scholars say it's totally constitutional," Trump told reporters of his emergency. 'Don't vote with Pelosi!' Trump argues the move allows him to skirt Congress and repurpose billions of dollars in other government funds, including money earmarked for military facilities. But Democrats and some Republicans point to Congress's constitutional duty to control government purse strings -- and say declaring an emergency to seize more money is an abuse of executive authority. Senator Mitt Romney, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, opposed Trump on the declaration, saying he cast his vote "for the constitution and for the balance of power that is at its core." A group of Republicans had sought to limit defections by cutting a deal with the president to rein in emergency declaration powers, but Trump refused. He set the stage for the showdown by using now-familiar pressure tactics, unsuccessfully warning Republicans not to rebuke him on the emergency. "Don't vote with Pelosi!" he boomed on Twitter early Thursday, referring to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whose Democratic-led chamber had already approved the resolution. Pelosi, who lunched with Trump and the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar at the US Capitol two hours before the critical Senate vote, had urged the upper chamber to "reject the president's unconstitutional measure." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed support for Trump as he sought to rally his troops. "The president is operating within existing law, and the crisis on our border is all too real," McConnell said, citing rising numbers of border detentions. 'Judgment of history' But the chamber's top Democrat couched it as a power grab by an unrestrained president acting out of "pique." "It's our job, here in Congress, to limit executive overreach, to defend our core powers" of controlling how federal dollars are spent, Senator Chuck Schumer said. "This is not an everyday moment," he added. "The judgment of history weighs on this vote." Numerous Senate Republicans, including some who sided with Trump Thursday, have called for a narrowing of parameters of the National Emergencies Act of 1976, under whose authority Trump and other presidents have acted in declaring their emergencies. "I think that law is overly broad and I want to fix it," Senator Ben Sasse said. "But at present Nancy Pelosi doesn't, so I am therefore voting against her politically motivated resolution." The White House laid out an ambitious 2020 budget proposal Monday which contains $8.6 billion in new wall funding, considerably above the $5.7 billion Trump sought for this year. Lawmakers are unlikely to go along. Congress recently provided just $1.4 billion for construction of 55 miles (90 kilometres) of barriers along the border in Texas. The White House has signalled it will seek to repurpose some $6 billion from military funds, without specifying which Pentagon programs would be slashed. But re-apportioning military money is a prickly undertaking, and several lawmakers from both parties have warned against it. Thursday's vote was the second bipartisan rebuke of Trump in as many days, after the Senate Wednesday voted to end US military support for the Saudi-led war effort in Yemen. Trump has threatened to veto that measure too.

Trump vows veto as Senate rebuke Mexico border emergency

The US Senate appeared poised to pass a proposal to terminate President Donald Trump`s declaration of an emergency at the southern border, despite his threat to veto the measure and heavy lobbying of his fellow Republicans.&nbsp;

Republican Senator Mike Lee, who had been shopping a second bill that would keep the emergency declaration in effect temporarily, said on Wednesday the White House had said Trump would not support his proposal, so he would be voting on Thursday to end the emergency declaration.

"For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch," Lee said in a statement. "I will be voting to terminate the latest emergency declaration."

The Utah lawmaker was the fifth Republican senator to say they back a measure passed by the Democratic-led House of Representatives to terminate Trump`s declaration. In the 100-seat Senate, votes from at least four Republicans are needed to pass the measure, along with all 45 Democrats and two independents.

Given Trump`s threat to veto the legislation, it is unlikely to become law.

"We`ll see whether or not I have to do the veto. And it will be, I think, all very successful, regardless of how it all works out, but it`s going to be very successful," Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

At stake are billions of dollars in funding for a wall along the US-Mexico border that Trump is demanding but Congress has refused to fully provide. The stalemate led to a 35-day partial government shutdown that ended in January.

Under the emergency declaration Trump signed on Feb. 15, he would take money from other federal programs to build the barrier he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and the flow of illicit drugs. There are also court challenges asserting Congress, not the president, decides how taxpayer money is spent.

Republicans who oppose the national emergency are worried that future Democratic presidents could usurp the power of Congress to fund the government and use the tactic to pass their own pet programs.

Lee had introduced a second measure that would end future emergency declarations after 30 days unless Congress votes to extend them. That 30-day approval window would apply after Trump`s current border declaration expires in one year, meaning it could remain in place for at least a year without congressional approval.

Vice President Mike Pence met with Republican senators this week to push Lee`s plan, saying Trump would support it. Lee said on Wednesday the White House had subsequently made clear his bill did "not have an immediate path forward" and he hoped it could be the "starting point for future work."

The US Senate appeared poised to pass a proposal to terminate President Donald Trump`s declaration of an emergency at the southern border, despite his threat to veto the measure and heavy lobbying of his fellow Republicans.

The US Senate appeared poised to pass a proposal to terminate President Donald Trump`s declaration of an emergency at the southern border, despite his threat to veto the measure and heavy lobbying of his fellow Republicans. Republican Senator Mike Lee, who had been shopping a second bill that would keep the emergency declaration in effect temporarily, said on Wednesday the White House had said Trump would not support his proposal, so he would be voting on Thursday to end the emergency declaration. "For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch," Lee said in a statement. "I will be voting to terminate the latest emergency declaration." The Utah lawmaker was the fifth Republican senator to say they back a measure passed by the Democratic-led House of Representatives to terminate Trump`s declaration. In the 100-seat Senate, votes from at least four Republicans are needed to pass the measure, along with all 45 Democrats and two independents. Given Trump`s threat to veto the legislation, it is unlikely to become law. "We`ll see whether or not I have to do the veto. And it will be, I think, all very successful, regardless of how it all works out, but it`s going to be very successful," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. At stake are billions of dollars in funding for a wall along the US-Mexico border that Trump is demanding but Congress has refused to fully provide. The stalemate led to a 35-day partial government shutdown that ended in January. Under the emergency declaration Trump signed on Feb. 15, he would take money from other federal programs to build the barrier he says is needed to curb illegal immigration and the flow of illicit drugs. There are also court challenges asserting Congress, not the president, decides how taxpayer money is spent. Republicans who oppose the national emergency are worried that future Democratic presidents could usurp the power of Congress to fund the government and use the tactic to pass their own pet programs. Lee had introduced a second measure that would end future emergency declarations after 30 days unless Congress votes to extend them. That 30-day approval window would apply after Trump`s current border declaration expires in one year, meaning it could remain in place for at least a year without congressional approval. Vice President Mike Pence met with Republican senators this week to push Lee`s plan, saying Trump would support it. Lee said on Wednesday the White House had subsequently made clear his bill did "not have an immediate path forward" and he hoped it could be the "starting point for future work."

US Senate Republican delivers blow to Trump border emergency

US President Donald Trump`s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen`s testimony to Congress regarding any potential pardon for his crimes "could have been clearer," but he never personally asked the president for such a reprieve, Cohen`s lawyer said.

In a statement to lawmakers on Tuesday, Cohen`s legal team sought to clarify his recent testimony amid questions over whether Cohen sought, or Trump offered, a pardon to the man who once declared he would take a bullet for the Republican president but later flipped to cooperate with federal prosecutors.&nbsp;

Cohen, who is to report to prison in May for campaign finance crimes and previously lying to Congress, said at a public hearing before a US House of Representatives panel last month, "I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump."

Trump himself challenged that claim. In a tweet on Friday, Trump said that Cohen "directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again!" Cohen, in his own tweet, responded, calling the president`s assertion "another set of lies."

On Wednesday, two Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which publicly questioned Cohen about possible pardons, asked Representative Elijah Cummings, the Democratic committee chairman, to join them in referring Cohen to the Justice Department for a possible perjury investigation.&nbsp;

Cummings said he did not "see the need for further action - at least at this time."&nbsp;

"Our practice on this Committee is to give witnesses an opportunity to clarify their testimony, and that is what Mr. Cohen has done," Cummings said in a statement.&nbsp;

In Tuesday`s letter, an attorney for Cohen said his testimony about not seeking a pardon referred to the period after Cohen decided to break from Trump in June 2018 and left their joint defence agreement.&nbsp;

"Cohen rejected the opportunity to ask for and receive a pardon even though he knew he was going to prison with hardships to his family," Cohen lawyer Michael Monico said in the letter to the Oversight Committee.

Another attorney, Robert Costello, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that Cohen instructed him last year to ask Trump`s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the possibility of a pardon.

"We have documents to back our position up, and are preparing to provide these to the U.S. Attorney’s office, who has asked for them," Costello said in a statement to Reuters.

Giuliani told Reuters last week that Costello called him around May 2018 and said, "Cohen has asked me to raise with you, can he get a pardon?"

"I told him, no, you’re not going to get a pardon," Giuliani said, adding that at one point Costello told him "Cohen was upset, but he never asked again about a pardon."

Lanny Davis, another Cohen lawyer, said later on Wednesday that "Mr. Cohen’s testimony was truthful. The letter provided greater time frame context for that testimony."&nbsp;

Davis complained that Oversight Committee Republicans had never "mentioned the hush money checks signed by President Trump, proving that the president committed a felony as part of the Stormy Daniels illegal hush money scheme" and questioned why Representative Jim Jordan, one of Trump`s most avid defenders on the committee, had ignored this.

Cohen has met with congressional committees four times since being sentenced, including a televised Feb. 27 hearing led by Cummings.

US President Donald Trump`s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen`s testimony to Congress regarding any potential pardon for his crimes "could have been clearer," but he never personally asked the president for such a reprieve, Cohen`s lawyer said.

US President Donald Trump`s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen`s testimony to Congress regarding any potential pardon for his crimes "could have been clearer," but he never personally asked the president for such a reprieve, Cohen`s lawyer said. In a statement to lawmakers on Tuesday, Cohen`s legal team sought to clarify his recent testimony amid questions over whether Cohen sought, or Trump offered, a pardon to the man who once declared he would take a bullet for the Republican president but later flipped to cooperate with federal prosecutors. Cohen, who is to report to prison in May for campaign finance crimes and previously lying to Congress, said at a public hearing before a US House of Representatives panel last month, "I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump." Trump himself challenged that claim. In a tweet on Friday, Trump said that Cohen "directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again!" Cohen, in his own tweet, responded, calling the president`s assertion "another set of lies." On Wednesday, two Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which publicly questioned Cohen about possible pardons, asked Representative Elijah Cummings, the Democratic committee chairman, to join them in referring Cohen to the Justice Department for a possible perjury investigation. Cummings said he did not "see the need for further action - at least at this time." "Our practice on this Committee is to give witnesses an opportunity to clarify their testimony, and that is what Mr. Cohen has done," Cummings said in a statement. In Tuesday`s letter, an attorney for Cohen said his testimony about not seeking a pardon referred to the period after Cohen decided to break from Trump in June 2018 and left their joint defence agreement. "Cohen rejected the opportunity to ask for and receive a pardon even though he knew he was going to prison with hardships to his family," Cohen lawyer Michael Monico said in the letter to the Oversight Committee. Another attorney, Robert Costello, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that Cohen instructed him last year to ask Trump`s lawyer Rudy Giuliani about the possibility of a pardon. "We have documents to back our position up, and are preparing to provide these to the U.S. Attorney’s office, who has asked for them," Costello said in a statement to Reuters. Giuliani told Reuters last week that Costello called him around May 2018 and said, "Cohen has asked me to raise with you, can he get a pardon?" "I told him, no, you’re not going to get a pardon," Giuliani said, adding that at one point Costello told him "Cohen was upset, but he never asked again about a pardon." Lanny Davis, another Cohen lawyer, said later on Wednesday that "Mr. Cohen’s testimony was truthful. The letter provided greater time frame context for that testimony." Davis complained that Oversight Committee Republicans had never "mentioned the hush money checks signed by President Trump, proving that the president committed a felony as part of the Stormy Daniels illegal hush money scheme" and questioned why Representative Jim Jordan, one of Trump`s most avid defenders on the committee, had ignored this. Cohen has met with congressional committees four times since being sentenced, including a televised Feb. 27 hearing led by Cummings.

Trump's ex-lawyer Cohen says testimony 'could have been clearer': Lawyer

The US Senate on Wednesday dealt a stinging bipartisan rebuke to Donald Trump's foreign policy and his alliance with Riyadh, voting to end support for the bloody Saudi-led <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/un-warns-a-generation-could-become-lost-to-hunger-in-yemen-197341">war effort in Yemen</a>.

Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled chamber approved a historic curtailment of presidential war powers that directs Trump "to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/west-asia/in-yemen-a-child-dies-every-10-minutes-from-easily-preventable-diseases-175690">Republic of Yemen</a>" within 30 days.

The Senate vote was 54 to 46, with seven Republicans defying the president and aligning with Democrats.

The text now heads to the Democrat-led House of Representatives, which approved a similar measure that stalled earlier this year, and which is likely to pass the latest effort.

The White House has threatened a veto, calling the measure "flawed" and saying it would harm bilateral relationships in the region and hurt Washington's ability to fight extremism.

But its full passage would set a historic marker. It would be the first measure passed by Congress to invoke the 1973 War Powers Resolution to directly curtail a president's use of military powers.

"Today, we begin the process of reclaiming our constitutional power by ending US involvement in a war that has not been authorized by Congress and is clearly unconstitutional," Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running for president in 2020 and is a sponsor of the measure, said on the Senate floor.

Republican Senator Mike Lee concurred, saying Saudi Arabia "is not an ally that deserves our support or our military intervention."

The Saudis, he said, "are likely using our own weapons... to commit these atrocities of war. That's not OK."

The war in Yemen is the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with an estimated 14 million people at risk of famine.&nbsp;

The World Health Organization says about 10,000 people have been killed in the war between forces loyal to the Yemeni government, backed by the Saudi-led coalition, and the Iran-aligned Huthi rebels. Rights groups say the death toll is far higher.

The United States provides weapons and refueling to the Saudi coalition.

Two days, two rebukes?

The resolution is a reminder that Congress has the legal ability to compel the removal of US military forces, absent a formal declaration of war.

Should it pass Congress, it could force Trump to issue the first veto of his tenure.

The vote may well be the first of two congressional rebukes of Trump in as many days.&nbsp;

On Thursday, the Senate is expected to vote on a resolution -- already passed by the House -- to reverse Trump's emergency declaration on border security, after the president went around Congress in a bid to secure more funding for his wall between the United States and Mexico.

In that case too, he has promised to use his veto.

Wednesday's Yemen vote, and the rare bipartisanship at the heart of it, came as US lawmakers have escalated their opposition to Saudi Arabia after the October murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul.&nbsp;

Republicans and Democrats alike have bristled over the White House's apparent embrace of the kingdom and its leadership.

Some members of Congress have publicly stated that they suspect that powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was directly responsible for the killing, based on the CIA's conclusions.

Sanders, using unusually blunt language about an American ally, said the United States should not "simply follow the despotic lead of a government in Saudi Arabia."&nbsp;

"We will determine our military and foreign pol and not be led around by a murderous regime," he said.

The US Senate on Wednesday dealt a stinging bipartisan rebuke to Donald Trump's foreign policy and his alliance with Riyadh, voting to end support for the bloody Saudi-led war effort in Yemen.

The US Senate on Wednesday dealt a stinging bipartisan rebuke to Donald Trump's foreign policy and his alliance with Riyadh, voting to end support for the bloody Saudi-led war effort in Yemen. Lawmakers in the Republican-controlled chamber approved a historic curtailment of presidential war powers that directs Trump "to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen" within 30 days. The Senate vote was 54 to 46, with seven Republicans defying the president and aligning with Democrats. The text now heads to the Democrat-led House of Representatives, which approved a similar measure that stalled earlier this year, and which is likely to pass the latest effort. The White House has threatened a veto, calling the measure "flawed" and saying it would harm bilateral relationships in the region and hurt Washington's ability to fight extremism. But its full passage would set a historic marker. It would be the first measure passed by Congress to invoke the 1973 War Powers Resolution to directly curtail a president's use of military powers. "Today, we begin the process of reclaiming our constitutional power by ending US involvement in a war that has not been authorized by Congress and is clearly unconstitutional," Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running for president in 2020 and is a sponsor of the measure, said on the Senate floor. Republican Senator Mike Lee concurred, saying Saudi Arabia "is not an ally that deserves our support or our military intervention." The Saudis, he said, "are likely using our own weapons... to commit these atrocities of war. That's not OK." The war in Yemen is the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with an estimated 14 million people at risk of famine. The World Health Organization says about 10,000 people have been killed in the war between forces loyal to the Yemeni government, backed by the Saudi-led coalition, and the Iran-aligned Huthi rebels. Rights groups say the death toll is far higher. The United States provides weapons and refueling to the Saudi coalition. Two days, two rebukes? The resolution is a reminder that Congress has the legal ability to compel the removal of US military forces, absent a formal declaration of war. Should it pass Congress, it could force Trump to issue the first veto of his tenure. The vote may well be the first of two congressional rebukes of Trump in as many days. On Thursday, the Senate is expected to vote on a resolution -- already passed by the House -- to reverse Trump's emergency declaration on border security, after the president went around Congress in a bid to secure more funding for his wall between the United States and Mexico. In that case too, he has promised to use his veto. Wednesday's Yemen vote, and the rare bipartisanship at the heart of it, came as US lawmakers have escalated their opposition to Saudi Arabia after the October murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the kingdom's consulate in Istanbul. Republicans and Democrats alike have bristled over the White House's apparent embrace of the kingdom and its leadership. Some members of Congress have publicly stated that they suspect that powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was directly responsible for the killing, based on the CIA's conclusions. Sanders, using unusually blunt language about an American ally, said the United States should not "simply follow the despotic lead of a government in Saudi Arabia." "We will determine our military and foreign pol and not be led around by a murderous regime," he said.

Defying Trump, Senate votes to end US support for Yemen war

When Donald Trump spoke with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg on Tuesday to get assurances about the safety of the 737 MAX plane that crashed in Ethiopia, he wasn`t talking to a stranger.

The US president, who owned his own airline, Trump Shuttle, from 1989 to 1992, is an aviation enthusiast. Before becoming president he had his own private jet and since his inauguration, he has taken visible delight in the presidential aircraft, Air Force One.

His aviation connections have expanded during his presidency to include relationships with powerful executives in the defense industry, including Muilenburg, with whom he has talked several times.&nbsp;

Muilenburg told Trump in Tuesday`s morning call that the aircraft was safe and did not need to be grounded, two people briefed on the conversation said.&nbsp;

Later in the day, aviation officials repeated that US flights of the plane would continue.

That leaves the United States as an outlier in its response to Sunday`s crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that killed 157 people. The European Union`s aviation safety regulator on Tuesday suspended all flights by the plane in the bloc; of the top 10 countries by air passenger travel, all but the United States and Japan have halted flights.

US officials, including a bipartisan group of five Senators, are asking why the FAA is not doing the same. US Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican who chairs the Senate subcommittee on aviation and space, said he intends to convene a hearing to investigate.

The Ethiopian crash follows one of a 737 MAX five months ago in Indonesia that killed 189 people. There is no evidence yet that the two disasters are linked. Plane experts say it is too early to speculate on the cause of the crash.

DEEP TIES

Trump personally negotiated with Muilenburg to try to lower the cost of a future version of Air Force One after complaining the price tag was too high.

"He cares about business and he creates open communication lines, and we will have differences from time to time, we may not agree on every topic,” Muilenburg said in a radio interview last month.&nbsp;

But while the relationship hasn`t all been cozy, ties between Boeing and the Trump administration run deep.

Trump has used Boeing products and sites as a backdrop for major announcements over the course of his presidency. In March 2018 he touted the impact of his tax overhaul bill as he visited a plant in St. Louis.

Before joining the Pentagon, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who is expected to be named to the post, worked for 31 years at Boeing, where he was general manager for the 787 Dreamliner passenger jet.

Boeing has nominated Nikki Haley, Trump`s former US ambassador to the United Nations who continues to be a close ally, to join its board of directors at the company`s annual shareholders meeting on April 29.

Trump has also put pressure on US allies to buy products from Boeing, the country`s second largest defense contractor which received $104 billion in unclassified defense contracts between 2014 and 2018.&nbsp;

US officials and defense industry sources said that weeks after Trump pressed the Emir of Kuwait in 2018 over a long-delayed deal for Boeing`s F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, Kuwait said it would proceed with the order.

Boeing is also one of the largest US exporters to China, and Muilenburg told an aviation summit in Washington that purchases of its US-made aircraft by China could be part of a sweeping trade deal currently being negotiated.

Aircraft exports have thus far been spared from retaliatory Chinese tariffs.

When Donald Trump spoke with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg on Tuesday to get assurances about the safety of the 737 MAX plane that crashed in Ethiopia, he wasn`t talking to a stranger.

When Donald Trump spoke with Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg on Tuesday to get assurances about the safety of the 737 MAX plane that crashed in Ethiopia, he wasn`t talking to a stranger. The US president, who owned his own airline, Trump Shuttle, from 1989 to 1992, is an aviation enthusiast. Before becoming president he had his own private jet and since his inauguration, he has taken visible delight in the presidential aircraft, Air Force One. His aviation connections have expanded during his presidency to include relationships with powerful executives in the defense industry, including Muilenburg, with whom he has talked several times. Muilenburg told Trump in Tuesday`s morning call that the aircraft was safe and did not need to be grounded, two people briefed on the conversation said. Later in the day, aviation officials repeated that US flights of the plane would continue. That leaves the United States as an outlier in its response to Sunday`s crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that killed 157 people. The European Union`s aviation safety regulator on Tuesday suspended all flights by the plane in the bloc; of the top 10 countries by air passenger travel, all but the United States and Japan have halted flights. US officials, including a bipartisan group of five Senators, are asking why the FAA is not doing the same. US Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican who chairs the Senate subcommittee on aviation and space, said he intends to convene a hearing to investigate. The Ethiopian crash follows one of a 737 MAX five months ago in Indonesia that killed 189 people. There is no evidence yet that the two disasters are linked. Plane experts say it is too early to speculate on the cause of the crash. DEEP TIES Trump personally negotiated with Muilenburg to try to lower the cost of a future version of Air Force One after complaining the price tag was too high. "He cares about business and he creates open communication lines, and we will have differences from time to time, we may not agree on every topic,” Muilenburg said in a radio interview last month. But while the relationship hasn`t all been cozy, ties between Boeing and the Trump administration run deep. Trump has used Boeing products and sites as a backdrop for major announcements over the course of his presidency. In March 2018 he touted the impact of his tax overhaul bill as he visited a plant in St. Louis. Before joining the Pentagon, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who is expected to be named to the post, worked for 31 years at Boeing, where he was general manager for the 787 Dreamliner passenger jet. Boeing has nominated Nikki Haley, Trump`s former US ambassador to the United Nations who continues to be a close ally, to join its board of directors at the company`s annual shareholders meeting on April 29. Trump has also put pressure on US allies to buy products from Boeing, the country`s second largest defense contractor which received $104 billion in unclassified defense contracts between 2014 and 2018. US officials and defense industry sources said that weeks after Trump pressed the Emir of Kuwait in 2018 over a long-delayed deal for Boeing`s F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets, Kuwait said it would proceed with the order. Boeing is also one of the largest US exporters to China, and Muilenburg told an aviation summit in Washington that purchases of its US-made aircraft by China could be part of a sweeping trade deal currently being negotiated. Aircraft exports have thus far been spared from retaliatory Chinese tariffs.

Ties between Boeing and Trump run deep

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/country-built-on-love-harmony-brotherhood-priyanka-gandhi-at-her-first-rally-202902">Country</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/country-built-on-love-harmony-brotherhood-priyanka-gandhi-at-her-first-rally-202902"> built on love, harmony &amp; brotherhood: Priyanka Gandhi at her first rally&nbsp;</a>

Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who was recently made Congress general secretary of eastern Uttar Pradesh, addressed her first rally today in Gujarat's Gandhinagar where she said "this country is made on the foundations of love, harmony and brotherhood." She added that "today, whatever is happening in the country is very sad."&nbsp;

The rally is being seen as the Congress kicking off its campaign for the general elections which will be held from April 11 to May 19. The results will be declared on May 23.&nbsp;

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-polls-i-reiterate-bsp-will-not-have-any-alliance-with-congress-says-mayawati-202862">Lok Sabha polls: No 'grand alliance' in Uttar Pradesh as Mayawati rules out </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-polls-i-reiterate-bsp-will-not-have-any-alliance-with-congress-says-mayawati-202862">tie-up</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-polls-i-reiterate-bsp-will-not-have-any-alliance-with-congress-says-mayawati-202862"> with Congress in any state</a>

Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Tuesday reiterated that her party will "not have any alliance with Congress party in any state". Her remarks came just a couple of days after the Election Commission of India announced dates for the Lok Sabha polls next month.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
"It has been reiterated once again that Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) will not have any alliance with Congress party in any state, to contest the upcoming elections," Mayawati said.&nbsp;

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-should-not-be-impeached-unless-reasons-are-overwhelming-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-202904">Trump should not be impeached unless reasons are 'overwhelming': Nancy Pelosi</a>

US President Donald Trump should not be impeached unless the reasons are overwhelming and bipartisan, given how divisive it would be for the country, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a Washington Post interview published on Monday.

"I’m not for impeachment," Pelosi, the top US Democrat, said in the interview, which was conducted last week.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/consumer-inflation-rises-to-257-in-february-government-data-202903">Retail inflation up to 2.57% in February: Government data</a>

Consumer inflation in the month of February rose to 2.57 per cent, government data revealed on Tuesday. Consumer inflation was revised to 1.97 per cent in January this year from 2.05 per cent.&nbsp;

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-new-york-times-faces-backlash-for-missplelling-pm-modis-name-calling-pulwama-terror-attack-an-explosion-202885">New York Times faces backlash for calling Pulwama terror attack an 'explosion', misspelling PM Modi's name</a>

The New York Times, a leading American daily, raked controversy on Monday after it referred to Pulwama terror attack as an "explosion". Twitterati didn't spare a second to troll the US media giant with some even asking if the 9/11 terror attack was an airplane crash if Pulwama bombing was an "explosion".&nbsp;

The "explosion" bit wasn't the only folly exhibited in the NYT tweet. Its post on a story on the upcoming Lok Sabha polls had the Prime Minister's name spelt wrongly as "Narandra Modi".&nbsp;

Country built on love, harmony & brotherhood: Priyanka Gandhi at her first rally Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who was recently made Congress general secretary of eastern Uttar Pradesh, addressed her first rally today in Gujarat's Gandhinagar where she said "this country is made on the foundations of love, harmony and brotherhood.

Country built on love, harmony & brotherhood: Priyanka Gandhi at her first rally Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who was recently made Congress general secretary of eastern Uttar Pradesh, addressed her first rally today in Gujarat's Gandhinagar where she said "this country is made on the foundations of love, harmony and brotherhood." She added that "today, whatever is happening in the country is very sad." The rally is being seen as the Congress kicking off its campaign for the general elections which will be held from April 11 to May 19. The results will be declared on May 23. Lok Sabha polls: No 'grand alliance' in Uttar Pradesh as Mayawati rules out tie-up with Congress in any state Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati on Tuesday reiterated that her party will "not have any alliance with Congress party in any state". Her remarks came just a couple of days after the Election Commission of India announced dates for the Lok Sabha polls next month. "It has been reiterated once again that Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) will not have any alliance with Congress party in any state, to contest the upcoming elections," Mayawati said. Trump should not be impeached unless reasons are 'overwhelming': Nancy Pelosi US President Donald Trump should not be impeached unless the reasons are overwhelming and bipartisan, given how divisive it would be for the country, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a Washington Post interview published on Monday. "I’m not for impeachment," Pelosi, the top US Democrat, said in the interview, which was conducted last week. Retail inflation up to 2.57% in February: Government data Consumer inflation in the month of February rose to 2.57 per cent, government data revealed on Tuesday. Consumer inflation was revised to 1.97 per cent in January this year from 2.05 per cent. New York Times faces backlash for calling Pulwama terror attack an 'explosion', misspelling PM Modi's name The New York Times, a leading American daily, raked controversy on Monday after it referred to Pulwama terror attack as an "explosion". Twitterati didn't spare a second to troll the US media giant with some even asking if the 9/11 terror attack was an airplane crash if Pulwama bombing was an "explosion". The "explosion" bit wasn't the only folly exhibited in the NYT tweet. Its post on a story on the upcoming Lok Sabha polls had the Prime Minister's name spelt wrongly as "Narandra Modi".

News brief: Big stories of the day

President Trump has defended his reported "slip-up" calling <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-apple-ceo-tim-apple-twitter-responds-with-funniest-memes-201755">Apple CEO Tim Cook </a>as "Tim Apple" asserting that he was trying to "save time and words."

"I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time &amp; words. The Fake News was disparagingly all over this, &amp; it became yet another bad Trump story!," the US president tweeted on Monday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
At a recent round table meeting of business executives, &amp; long after formally introducing Tim Cook of Apple, I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time &amp; words. The Fake News was disparagingly all over this, &amp; it became yet another bad Trump story!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1105109329290686464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Trump was quick to blame it as a&nbsp;"fake news" story, saying it was another "bad Trump story".

As the goof-up went viral, Apple CEO renamed his Twitter handle as "Tim Apple", in an apparent dig at the US president. The whole issue dominated the social media for days as several memes cropped up taking a swipe at Trump.

Trump had made the comment while addressing the &nbsp;inaugural meeting of the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board at the White House even as Tim Cook was sat&nbsp;right next to the US president. The video of the meeting soon went viral.

This is not the first time Trump has goofed-up someone's last name with the name of the company they were associated with.

Last year, he referred to aerospace and defence giant Lockheed Martin's CEO Marilyn Hewson as "Marilyn Lockheed." 
&nbsp;

President Trump has defended his reported "slip-up" calling Apple CEO Tim Cook as "Tim Apple" asserting that he was trying to "save time and words." "I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time & words.

President Trump has defended his reported "slip-up" calling Apple CEO Tim Cook as "Tim Apple" asserting that he was trying to "save time and words." "I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time & words. The Fake News was disparagingly all over this, & it became yet another bad Trump story!," the US president tweeted on Monday. At a recent round table meeting of business executives, & long after formally introducing Tim Cook of Apple, I quickly referred to Tim + Apple as Tim/Apple as an easy way to save time & words. The Fake News was disparagingly all over this, & it became yet another bad Trump story! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 11, 2019 × Trump was quick to blame it as a "fake news" story, saying it was another "bad Trump story". As the goof-up went viral, Apple CEO renamed his Twitter handle as "Tim Apple", in an apparent dig at the US president. The whole issue dominated the social media for days as several memes cropped up taking a swipe at Trump. Trump had made the comment while addressing the inaugural meeting of the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board at the White House even as Tim Cook was sat right next to the US president. The video of the meeting soon went viral. This is not the first time Trump has goofed-up someone's last name with the name of the company they were associated with. Last year, he referred to aerospace and defence giant Lockheed Martin's CEO Marilyn Hewson as "Marilyn Lockheed."

I referred to Tim+Apple as Tim/Apple to save time & words, tweets Trump

The week that was, in pictures

President Donald Trump's communications director, Bill Shine, resigned on Friday, the White House said.

"Assistant to the president and communications director Bill Shine offered his resignation to the president yesterday evening, and the president accepted," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement reported by news agency AFP.&nbsp;

"Bill continues to support President Trump and his agenda and will serve as senior advisor to the 2020 re-election campaign."

Shine has served as a Fox News executive previously.&nbsp;

Shine steps down&nbsp;amid reports of US Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson's resignation. Long considered a top candidate to become the next secretary of defence, Wilson has decided to resign after about two years leading a service at the heart of America's campaigns in Syria and Afghanistan, a US official told Reuters on Friday.

The official told Reuters that Wilson aims to return to academia and was not asked or pressured to leave by the Trump administration.

Wilson took to Twitter and communicated about her decision of stepping&nbsp;down.

"Today I informed the President I will resign as Secretary of the Air Force to be President of the University of Texas at El Paso. It has been a privilege to serve with our #Airmen—I am proud of the progress we have made to restore the readiness &amp; lethality of #USAF," her tweet read.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Today I informed the President I will resign as Secretary of the Air Force to be President of the University of Texas at El Paso. It has been a privilege to serve with our <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Airmen?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Airmen</a>—I am proud of the progress we have made to restore the readiness &amp; lethality of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/USAF?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#USAF</a>.
— Dr. Heather Wilson (@SecAFOfficial) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecAFOfficial/status/1104061257068498944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Wilson is reported to step down on May 31, if the University of Texas Board of Regents approves her selection to be president of University of Texas at El Paso, said the official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

President Donald Trump's communications director, Bill Shine, resigned on Friday, the White House said. "Assistant to the president and communications director Bill Shine offered his resignation to the president yesterday evening, and the president accepted," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement reported by news agency AFP.

President Donald Trump's communications director, Bill Shine, resigned on Friday, the White House said. "Assistant to the president and communications director Bill Shine offered his resignation to the president yesterday evening, and the president accepted," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement reported by news agency AFP. "Bill continues to support President Trump and his agenda and will serve as senior advisor to the 2020 re-election campaign." Shine has served as a Fox News executive previously. Shine steps down amid reports of US Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson's resignation. Long considered a top candidate to become the next secretary of defence, Wilson has decided to resign after about two years leading a service at the heart of America's campaigns in Syria and Afghanistan, a US official told Reuters on Friday. The official told Reuters that Wilson aims to return to academia and was not asked or pressured to leave by the Trump administration. Wilson took to Twitter and communicated about her decision of stepping down. "Today I informed the President I will resign as Secretary of the Air Force to be President of the University of Texas at El Paso. It has been a privilege to serve with our #Airmen—I am proud of the progress we have made to restore the readiness & lethality of #USAF," her tweet read. Today I informed the President I will resign as Secretary of the Air Force to be President of the University of Texas at El Paso. It has been a privilege to serve with our #Airmen—I am proud of the progress we have made to restore the readiness & lethality of #USAF. — Dr. Heather Wilson (@SecAFOfficial) March 8, 2019 × Wilson is reported to step down on May 31, if the University of Texas Board of Regents approves her selection to be president of University of Texas at El Paso, said the official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity. (With inputs from agencies)

Trump's communications director, Air Force Secretary resign

US President Donald Trump said on Friday his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has since turned against him and pleaded guilty to multiple crimes, had asked him directly for a pardon but was rejected.

"Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied!," Trump tweeted. "Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1104050224052396032?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump said on Friday his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has since turned against him and pleaded guilty to multiple crimes, had asked him directly for a pardon but was rejected.

US President Donald Trump said on Friday his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who has since turned against him and pleaded guilty to multiple crimes, had asked him directly for a pardon but was rejected. "Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied!," Trump tweeted. "Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO." Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2019 ×

Trump says ex-lawyer Cohen asked him for a pardon, but he said no

US President Donald Trump revoked a policy Wednesday that required the Central Intelligence Agency to account for civilian deaths from <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-us-to-discuss-range-of-crucial-issues-during-22-talks-163530">drone strikes</a>.

The move reversed a two-year-old order by his predecessor Barack Obama, who came under pressure for greater transparency after sharply increasing the use of drones for targeted attacks in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/military-can-destroy-drones-over-domestic-us-bases-pentagon-18700">military and counterterrorism operations</a>.

It could give the CIA greater latitude to conduct strikes as Trump increasingly relies on the spy agency, rather than the military, for lethal drone operations.

Rights groups immediately criticized the move, saying it reverses a hard-fought effort for transparency and accountability in drone strikes, which became central to US strategy in the wake of the September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda attack on the United States.

"The Trump Administration's action is an unnecessary and dangerous step backwards on transparency and accountability for the use of lethal force, and the civilian casualties they cause," said Rita Siemion of Human Rights First.

Trump's action rescinded the July 1, 2016 order by Obama requiring the US director of national intelligence to report annually the number of strikes taken against "terrorist targets" outside of active war zones, and give an assessment of combatant and civilian deaths that resulted.

Trump's move though applied only to strikes by non-defense department agencies -- the CIA, in effect.&nbsp;

It did not overturn requirements set by Congress for the Pentagon to account for civilian casualties in its operations.

Activists say the move could make the CIA even less accountable than in the past.

The agency took the lead role in drone strikes in post-9/11 counterterror activities, targeting Al-Qaeda and other extremists especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, with frequent reports of significant "collateral" civilian deaths.

Under pressure to rein in the scores of strikes annually, in 2016 Obama ordered tighter procedures for managing the strikes and reducing civilian casualties.

Around the same time he forced the CIA to slash its drone activities and put the military more in charge of them.&nbsp;

But after Trump took office in January 2017, the CIA's drone attacks resumed, according to reports.

Its role could grow as US forces reduce their presence in Syria and Afghanistan.

Shannon Green, director of programs at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, called Trump's order Wednesday "a blow to transparency."

"While public reporting on the use of lethal force by all agencies is crucial, ensuring that all agencies are accountable for preventing civilian casualties and then responding to claims of harm is perhaps even more important," she said. 
&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump revoked a policy Wednesday that required the Central Intelligence Agency to account for civilian deaths from drone strikes. The move reversed a two-year-old order by his predecessor Barack Obama, who came under pressure for greater transparency after sharply increasing the use of drones for targeted attacks in military and counterterrorism operations.

US President Donald Trump revoked a policy Wednesday that required the Central Intelligence Agency to account for civilian deaths from drone strikes. The move reversed a two-year-old order by his predecessor Barack Obama, who came under pressure for greater transparency after sharply increasing the use of drones for targeted attacks in military and counterterrorism operations. It could give the CIA greater latitude to conduct strikes as Trump increasingly relies on the spy agency, rather than the military, for lethal drone operations. Rights groups immediately criticized the move, saying it reverses a hard-fought effort for transparency and accountability in drone strikes, which became central to US strategy in the wake of the September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda attack on the United States. "The Trump Administration's action is an unnecessary and dangerous step backwards on transparency and accountability for the use of lethal force, and the civilian casualties they cause," said Rita Siemion of Human Rights First. Trump's action rescinded the July 1, 2016 order by Obama requiring the US director of national intelligence to report annually the number of strikes taken against "terrorist targets" outside of active war zones, and give an assessment of combatant and civilian deaths that resulted. Trump's move though applied only to strikes by non-defense department agencies -- the CIA, in effect. It did not overturn requirements set by Congress for the Pentagon to account for civilian casualties in its operations. Activists say the move could make the CIA even less accountable than in the past. The agency took the lead role in drone strikes in post-9/11 counterterror activities, targeting Al-Qaeda and other extremists especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, with frequent reports of significant "collateral" civilian deaths. Under pressure to rein in the scores of strikes annually, in 2016 Obama ordered tighter procedures for managing the strikes and reducing civilian casualties. Around the same time he forced the CIA to slash its drone activities and put the military more in charge of them. But after Trump took office in January 2017, the CIA's drone attacks resumed, according to reports. Its role could grow as US forces reduce their presence in Syria and Afghanistan. Shannon Green, director of programs at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, called Trump's order Wednesday "a blow to transparency." "While public reporting on the use of lethal force by all agencies is crucial, ensuring that all agencies are accountable for preventing civilian casualties and then responding to claims of harm is perhaps even more important," she said.

Trump revokes policy requiring CIA to report drone strike casualties

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he'd be "very, very disappointed" with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un if reports that work is underway to rebuild a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-rebuilding-main-missile-site-launch-it-promised-trump-to-dismantle-report-201440">long-range rocket site</a> are confirmed.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said "it's too early to see" if the information about work at the North Korean site is true. Warning he'd be disappointed, he added: "I don't think I will be, but we'll see what happens." Trump and Kim met last week in Vietnam to negotiate on getting rid of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, but the summit broke up early with no progress.

Researchers say that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-north-korea-envoy-in-talks-after-pyongyang-rocket-site-work-revealed-201633">rebuilding of the facility </a>in question has been underway since the summit and may have started before the Vietnam meeting.

"This facility had been dormant since August 2018, indicating the current activity is deliberate and purposeful," said researchers at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Researchers said that the activity may be intended to "demonstrate resolve in the face of US rejection" of the North's request for an easing of sanctions in return for some dismantlement of nuclear weapons infrastructure.

Kim had agreed to shutter the Sohae missile-testing site at a summit with the South's President Moon Jae-in in Pyongyang, as part of confidence-building measures, and satellite pictures in August had suggested workers were already dismantling an engine test stand at the facility.

But CSIS said building activity is now "evident" at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, from where Pyongyang launched satellites in 2012 and 2016.

North Korea was later banned by the UN security council from carrying out the space launches, as some of its technology was similar to that used for intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs.

The respected Washington-based 38 North project, another independent research website specialising in North Korea, also reported building work at the Sohae facility, based on commercial satellite imagery.

According to 38 North, the efforts to rebuild structures at the Sohae facility started sometime between February 16 and March 2 this year.

The pictures show a moving structure that had been used to carry launch vehicles to a launch pad on rails has been restored, it said.

"Two support cranes are observed at the building, the walls have been erected and a new roof added. At the engine test stand, it appears that the engine support structure is being reassembled," the 38 North reported.

In a briefing to parliamentarians this week, Seoul's spy agency said it had detected signs of work at the site.

Joel Wit, the director of the 38 North project, cautioned that the evidence was not necessarily "consistent with preparations for an ICBM test." "Aside from the fact that (North Korea) has never tested an ICBM from Sohae - it's a space vehicle launch site - preparation for any launch would require a wide range of activities not observed in the imagery," Wit said.

However, a rocket engine test could be performed there and that would send "a really strong signal" to Washington, Wit said.

"A lot depends on how the US reacts to what's going on," Wit said. "The danger here is that we could start spiraling downward as each side takes steps and undermine the process that's been in place since last spring."

Impoverished and isolated North Korea conducted its first successful nuclear test in 2006 followed by a string of increasingly successful ICBM launches. 
In 2017, it claimed it had become capable of fitting a viable nuclear weapon on an ICBM that could reach as far as the United States' eastern seaboard.

In response, the UN Security Council later banned the North's main exports -- coal and other mineral resources, fisheries and textile products -- to cut off its access to hard currency.

At their groundbreaking first summit in Singapore last year, Kim and Trump produced a vague statement on the "denuclearization of the Korean peninsula." There were high expectations for Kim and Trump's second meeting in Hanoi, but no agreement was reached. Despite the stalemate, both sides said they were open to further talks. 
John Bolton, the US national security adviser, however said on Tuesday that the US would look at "ramping those sanctions up" if Pyongyang did not give up its nuclear weapons program.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he'd be "very, very disappointed" with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un if reports that work is underway to rebuild a long-range rocket site are confirmed.

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he'd be "very, very disappointed" with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un if reports that work is underway to rebuild a long-range rocket site are confirmed. Speaking to reporters, Trump said "it's too early to see" if the information about work at the North Korean site is true. Warning he'd be disappointed, he added: "I don't think I will be, but we'll see what happens." Trump and Kim met last week in Vietnam to negotiate on getting rid of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, but the summit broke up early with no progress. Researchers say that rebuilding of the facility in question has been underway since the summit and may have started before the Vietnam meeting. "This facility had been dormant since August 2018, indicating the current activity is deliberate and purposeful," said researchers at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Researchers said that the activity may be intended to "demonstrate resolve in the face of US rejection" of the North's request for an easing of sanctions in return for some dismantlement of nuclear weapons infrastructure. Kim had agreed to shutter the Sohae missile-testing site at a summit with the South's President Moon Jae-in in Pyongyang, as part of confidence-building measures, and satellite pictures in August had suggested workers were already dismantling an engine test stand at the facility. But CSIS said building activity is now "evident" at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station, from where Pyongyang launched satellites in 2012 and 2016. North Korea was later banned by the UN security council from carrying out the space launches, as some of its technology was similar to that used for intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. The respected Washington-based 38 North project, another independent research website specialising in North Korea, also reported building work at the Sohae facility, based on commercial satellite imagery. According to 38 North, the efforts to rebuild structures at the Sohae facility started sometime between February 16 and March 2 this year. The pictures show a moving structure that had been used to carry launch vehicles to a launch pad on rails has been restored, it said. "Two support cranes are observed at the building, the walls have been erected and a new roof added. At the engine test stand, it appears that the engine support structure is being reassembled," the 38 North reported. In a briefing to parliamentarians this week, Seoul's spy agency said it had detected signs of work at the site. Joel Wit, the director of the 38 North project, cautioned that the evidence was not necessarily "consistent with preparations for an ICBM test." "Aside from the fact that (North Korea) has never tested an ICBM from Sohae - it's a space vehicle launch site - preparation for any launch would require a wide range of activities not observed in the imagery," Wit said. However, a rocket engine test could be performed there and that would send "a really strong signal" to Washington, Wit said. "A lot depends on how the US reacts to what's going on," Wit said. "The danger here is that we could start spiraling downward as each side takes steps and undermine the process that's been in place since last spring." Impoverished and isolated North Korea conducted its first successful nuclear test in 2006 followed by a string of increasingly successful ICBM launches. In 2017, it claimed it had become capable of fitting a viable nuclear weapon on an ICBM that could reach as far as the United States' eastern seaboard. In response, the UN Security Council later banned the North's main exports -- coal and other mineral resources, fisheries and textile products -- to cut off its access to hard currency. At their groundbreaking first summit in Singapore last year, Kim and Trump produced a vague statement on the "denuclearization of the Korean peninsula." There were high expectations for Kim and Trump's second meeting in Hanoi, but no agreement was reached. Despite the stalemate, both sides said they were open to further talks. John Bolton, the US national security adviser, however said on Tuesday that the US would look at "ramping those sanctions up" if Pyongyang did not give up its nuclear weapons program.

Will be very, very disappointed, says Trump over reports of North Korea rebuilding rocket site

Gravitas: Trump's latest target: India

The world this week, in pictures

China on Saturday welcomed the US decision of suspending the tariff hike of goods imported from China, as the two countries intensified negotiations to reach a deal to end the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-urges-china-to-remove-tariffs-on-us-agricultural-products-200630">current trade war</a> between the world's two largest economies.

The Customs Tariff Commission of China said it accepted the statement from US Trade Representative Office, which stated that Chinese goods that have been subject to tariffs since September 2018 will maintain a 10-per cent tariff rate until further notice, state-run CGTN television reported.

The US earlier announced a tariff increase of Chinese goods from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, which was initially scheduled for January 1, but the Trump administration extended the deadline for 90 days due to progress in talks.

Trump is demanding China to reduce the $375 billion trade deficit and protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), technology transfer and more access to American goods to Chinese markets.

He has already increased the tariffs on over $250 billion worth of Chinese exports to US and threatened to extend tariffs on 4200 billion worth of Chinese imports to 25 per cent.

China on Saturday welcomed the US decision of suspending the tariff hike of goods imported from China, as the two countries intensified negotiations to reach a deal to end the current trade war between the world's two largest economies.

China on Saturday welcomed the US decision of suspending the tariff hike of goods imported from China, as the two countries intensified negotiations to reach a deal to end the current trade war between the world's two largest economies. The Customs Tariff Commission of China said it accepted the statement from US Trade Representative Office, which stated that Chinese goods that have been subject to tariffs since September 2018 will maintain a 10-per cent tariff rate until further notice, state-run CGTN television reported. The US earlier announced a tariff increase of Chinese goods from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, which was initially scheduled for January 1, but the Trump administration extended the deadline for 90 days due to progress in talks. Trump is demanding China to reduce the $375 billion trade deficit and protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), technology transfer and more access to American goods to Chinese markets. He has already increased the tariffs on over $250 billion worth of Chinese exports to US and threatened to extend tariffs on 4200 billion worth of Chinese imports to 25 per cent.

China welcomes US decision to suspend tariff hike

South Korea's presidential office expressed regret after the summit between <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-deal-with-kim-thwarted-by-north-korean-sanction-demands-200231">US President Donald Trump </a>and North Korea's Kim Jong Un ended without a deal but said "meaningful progress" had been made.

"It is regrettable President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un did not reach a complete agreement on today's summit," Blue House spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom said in a statement.

"But it appears clear that more meaningful progress was made than at any other point in the past."

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had failed to reach an agreement due to North Korean demands to lift punishing US-led sanctions.

Earlier, both Trump and Kim had expressed hope for progress on improving relations and on the key issue of denuclearisation, in their talks in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, their second summit in eight months.

Both leaders left the venue of their talks, the French-colonial-era Metropole hotel, without attending a planned lunch together, and returned to their hotels.

Failure to reach an agreement marks a setback for Trump, a self-styled dealmaker under pressure at home over his ties to Russia and testimony from Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, accusing him of breaking the law while in office.

South Korea's presidential office expressed regret after the summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un ended without a deal but said "meaningful progress" had been made.

South Korea's presidential office expressed regret after the summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un ended without a deal but said "meaningful progress" had been made. "It is regrettable President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un did not reach a complete agreement on today's summit," Blue House spokesman Kim Eui-kyeom said in a statement. "But it appears clear that more meaningful progress was made than at any other point in the past." US President Donald Trump said on Thursday his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had failed to reach an agreement due to North Korean demands to lift punishing US-led sanctions. Earlier, both Trump and Kim had expressed hope for progress on improving relations and on the key issue of denuclearisation, in their talks in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, their second summit in eight months. Both leaders left the venue of their talks, the French-colonial-era Metropole hotel, without attending a planned lunch together, and returned to their hotels. Failure to reach an agreement marks a setback for Trump, a self-styled dealmaker under pressure at home over his ties to Russia and testimony from Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, accusing him of breaking the law while in office.

North Korea summit outcome 'regrettable' but progress made: Seoul

Several dissidents were detained in Hanoi on Wednesday as North Korea's Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump kicked off their second summit in the Vietnamese capital.&nbsp;

Vietnam, a one-party state with little tolerance for dissent, is working hard to control every aspect of the closely-watched meeting to avoid even the most minor embarrassment on the world stage.&nbsp;

At least three dissidents were hauled off by police Wednesday as they tried to catch a glimpse of the leaders' motorcades in the streets of Hanoi.&nbsp;

"We were just taking photos then seven (plainclothes) men jumped into us and brought us here to the station," said Le Dung, livestreaming from a police post in Hanoi.&nbsp;

He was locked in a room with two other activists, he said, adding: "We are now guarded by only one militiaman, who knows nothing."

His live feed suddenly died late Wednesday and he could not be reached on his mobile phone.

Other dissidents said they were closely followed by plainclothes police or kept under de-facto house arrest with officers standing guard outside their homes.

"They are stationed outside my house and follow me whenever I go out," said Nguyen Chi Tuyen, an activist better known by his online nickname Anh Chi.

"For activists like me, the summit just means more trouble." 
Vietnam routinely locks up its critics, and has seen a spike in arrests since a hardline administration came to power in 2016.

Amnesty International called on Trump to press Kim on North Korea's dismal rights record at the summit.

The US president's "silence in the face of relentless and grave human rights violations has been deafening", said Francisco Bencosme, advocacy manager for Asia-Pacific at Amnesty's US branch.

Hanoi authorities deported Kim impersonator Howard X earlier this week after he appeared in public with Trump lookalike Russell White.

On Wednesday another Kim doppelganger, Thai Uthen Lueangsaengthong, was put on a plane home after he went on a walkabout in Hanoi, Thai press reported.&nbsp;

Several dissidents were detained in Hanoi on Wednesday as North Korea's Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump kicked off their second summit in the Vietnamese capital.

Several dissidents were detained in Hanoi on Wednesday as North Korea's Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump kicked off their second summit in the Vietnamese capital. Vietnam, a one-party state with little tolerance for dissent, is working hard to control every aspect of the closely-watched meeting to avoid even the most minor embarrassment on the world stage. At least three dissidents were hauled off by police Wednesday as they tried to catch a glimpse of the leaders' motorcades in the streets of Hanoi. "We were just taking photos then seven (plainclothes) men jumped into us and brought us here to the station," said Le Dung, livestreaming from a police post in Hanoi. He was locked in a room with two other activists, he said, adding: "We are now guarded by only one militiaman, who knows nothing." His live feed suddenly died late Wednesday and he could not be reached on his mobile phone. Other dissidents said they were closely followed by plainclothes police or kept under de-facto house arrest with officers standing guard outside their homes. "They are stationed outside my house and follow me whenever I go out," said Nguyen Chi Tuyen, an activist better known by his online nickname Anh Chi. "For activists like me, the summit just means more trouble." Vietnam routinely locks up its critics, and has seen a spike in arrests since a hardline administration came to power in 2016. Amnesty International called on Trump to press Kim on North Korea's dismal rights record at the summit. The US president's "silence in the face of relentless and grave human rights violations has been deafening", said Francisco Bencosme, advocacy manager for Asia-Pacific at Amnesty's US branch. Hanoi authorities deported Kim impersonator Howard X earlier this week after he appeared in public with Trump lookalike Russell White. On Wednesday another Kim doppelganger, Thai Uthen Lueangsaengthong, was put on a plane home after he went on a walkabout in Hanoi, Thai press reported.

Dissidents detained in Hanoi as Trump-Kim summit opens

Trump meets North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi as second summit begins

US President Trump and North Korea leader Kim Jong-un opened the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-hails-north-koreas-awesome-potential-ahead-of-talks-with-kim-200047"> second summit </a>in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi on Wednesday.

Kim and Trump shook hands and smiled briefly in front of a row of their countries' flags at the Metropole hotel in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi.

Trump told reporters he thought the talks would be very successful, and asked if he was "walking back" on denuclearisation, said "no".

"I am certain that an outcome will be achieved this time that will be welcomed by all people," Kim told Trump. "I will do my best to make that happen."

Trump had earlier met Kim in Singapore in June last year as the North Korean leader promised to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, however, no real progress was reported leading several experts to claim that North Korea a was stalling.

In the run-up to this <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/whats-at-stake-at-the-hanoi-summit-between-trump-and-kim-200065">summit</a>, Trump has indicated a more flexible stance, saying he was in no rush to secure North Korea's denuclearisation. He repeated that on Wednesday, saying while some people believed the talks should be moving more quickly, he was satisfied.

Trump has held out the prospect of easing sanctions if North Korea does something "meaningful".

The two leaders are scheduled to hold a 20-minute, one-on-one chat followed by a dinner with aides.

Trump will be accompanied by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Kim will be joined by his top envoy, Kim Yong Chol, and Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho.

US President Trump and North Korea leader Kim Jong-un opened the second summit in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi on Wednesday. Kim and Trump shook hands and smiled briefly in front of a row of their countries' flags at the Metropole hotel in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi.

US President Trump and North Korea leader Kim Jong-un opened the second summit in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi on Wednesday. Kim and Trump shook hands and smiled briefly in front of a row of their countries' flags at the Metropole hotel in the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. Trump told reporters he thought the talks would be very successful, and asked if he was "walking back" on denuclearisation, said "no". "I am certain that an outcome will be achieved this time that will be welcomed by all people," Kim told Trump. "I will do my best to make that happen." Trump had earlier met Kim in Singapore in June last year as the North Korean leader promised to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, however, no real progress was reported leading several experts to claim that North Korea a was stalling. In the run-up to this summit, Trump has indicated a more flexible stance, saying he was in no rush to secure North Korea's denuclearisation. He repeated that on Wednesday, saying while some people believed the talks should be moving more quickly, he was satisfied. Trump has held out the prospect of easing sanctions if North Korea does something "meaningful". The two leaders are scheduled to hold a 20-minute, one-on-one chat followed by a dinner with aides. Trump will be accompanied by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Kim will be joined by his top envoy, Kim Yong Chol, and Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho.

US President Donald Trump landed in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/hanoi-summit-vietnam-train-station-on-lockdown-ahead-of-kims-arrival-199606">Hanoi on Tuesday</a> for two days of talks to try to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong-un&nbsp;to give up his nuclear arsenal.

Trump arrived on Air Force One after flying half way around the world from Washington, while Kim arrived earlier, following a two-and-a-half-day train journey from Pyongyang. They were due to have dinner Wednesday and continue talks on Thursday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Just arrived in Vietnam. Thank you to all of the people for the great reception in Hanoi. Tremendous crowds, and so much love!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1100412227662708737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1100211499350450176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Earlier, Kim had boarded his trademark olive-green train in Pyongyang on Saturday and its armoured carriages were later spotted crossing a bridge into China.

Trump and Kim's first meeting had ended with a vaguely worded statement to work towards the "complete denuclearisation" of the Korean peninsula, and both sides are under pressure to walk away from this week's summit with concrete deliverables.

After an initial historic meeting in Singapore in June that produced only a vague statement about denuclearisation, analysts say the second date must deliver more in the way of tangible progress.&nbsp;

The summit itself is shrouded in secrecy and there was still no official word even on the venue when Trump touched down in Air Force One late Tuesday. The two leaders were expected to have an informal dinner on Wednesday before more formal talks on Thursday.

Trump made no comment to reporters on his aircraft but had previously tweeted his hopes for a "very productive" meeting, reiterating that North Korea could enjoy economic riches if it gave up its nuclear weapons.&nbsp;

"With complete Denuclearization, North Korea will rapidly become an Economic Powerhouse," tweeted Trump. "Without it, just more of the same."

"Chairman Kim will make a wise decision!" 
&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump landed in Hanoi on Tuesday for two days of talks to try to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear arsenal. Trump arrived on Air Force One after flying half way around the world from Washington, while Kim arrived earlier, following a two-and-a-half-day train journey from Pyongyang.

US President Donald Trump landed in Hanoi on Tuesday for two days of talks to try to persuade North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to give up his nuclear arsenal. Trump arrived on Air Force One after flying half way around the world from Washington, while Kim arrived earlier, following a two-and-a-half-day train journey from Pyongyang. They were due to have dinner Wednesday and continue talks on Thursday. Just arrived in Vietnam. Thank you to all of the people for the great reception in Hanoi. Tremendous crowds, and so much love! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019 × ....This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019 × Earlier, Kim had boarded his trademark olive-green train in Pyongyang on Saturday and its armoured carriages were later spotted crossing a bridge into China. Trump and Kim's first meeting had ended with a vaguely worded statement to work towards the "complete denuclearisation" of the Korean peninsula, and both sides are under pressure to walk away from this week's summit with concrete deliverables. After an initial historic meeting in Singapore in June that produced only a vague statement about denuclearisation, analysts say the second date must deliver more in the way of tangible progress. The summit itself is shrouded in secrecy and there was still no official word even on the venue when Trump touched down in Air Force One late Tuesday. The two leaders were expected to have an informal dinner on Wednesday before more formal talks on Thursday. Trump made no comment to reporters on his aircraft but had previously tweeted his hopes for a "very productive" meeting, reiterating that North Korea could enjoy economic riches if it gave up its nuclear weapons. "With complete Denuclearization, North Korea will rapidly become an Economic Powerhouse," tweeted Trump. "Without it, just more of the same." "Chairman Kim will make a wise decision!"

After Kim, Trump arrives in Hanoi for summit talks

President Donald Trump said Wednesday he is barring a US-born former Islamic State propagandist from returning home, making the highly unusual case that she is not a US citizen.

Trump's refusal to admit 24-year-old Hoda Muthana comes just as <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/take-back-jihadists-trump-tells-europe-197895">he is pressing Europeans to repatriate their own Islamic State fighters</a> and will likely face legal challenges, with US citizenship extremely difficult to lose.

Trump said on Twitter he has "instructed" Secretary of State Mike Pompeo "not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the country" — a break with usual US protocol not to comment on individuals' immigration issues.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1098327855145062411?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a US citizen and will not be admitted into the United States," Pompeo said in a terse statement.

"She does not have any legal basis, no valid US passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States," he added.

The US generally grants citizenship to everyone born on its soil and the Alabama-raised Muthana is believed to have traveled to Syria on a US passport.

But a US official said a later investigation showed that she had not been entitled to her passport, adding: "Ms. Muthana's citizenship has not been revoked because she was never a citizen."

Officials declined further comment but in a loophole that could boost the government case, Muthana's father had been a diplomat from Yemen -- and children of diplomats are not automatically given citizenship.

Muthana's lawyer, Hassan Shilby, showed a birth certificate that demonstrated she was born in New Jersey in 1994 and said her father had ceased being a diplomat "months and months" before her birth.

"She is a US citizen. She had a valid passport. She may have broken the law and, if she has, she's willing to pay the price," Shilby told AFP at his office in Tampa.

He said Muthana wanted due process and was willing to go to prison if convicted.

"We cannot get to a point where we simply strip citizenship from those who break the law. That's not what America is about. We have one of the greatest legal systems in the world, and we have to abide by it."

US-born and radicalised 
Just this weekend, Trump took to Twitter to chastise European allies that have not taken back hundreds of Islamic State prisoners caught in Syria, where Trump plans to withdraw US troops.

Comparatively few Americans have embraced radical Islam, with the Counter Extremism Project at George Washington University identifying 64 who went to join the Islamic State group in Syria or Iraq.

Muthana, raised in a strict household in Hoover, Alabama, said she was brainwashed by social media messages and headed to Syria without her parents' knowledge in 2014.

Shortly afterward, Muthana posted on Twitter a picture of herself and three other women who appeared to torch their Western passports, including an American one.

She went on to post vivid calls on social media to kill Americans, glorifying the ruthless extremist group notorious for its beheadings that for a time ruled vast swathes of Syria and Iraq.

But with the Islamic State group down to its last stretch of land, Muthana said she has renounced extremism and wants to return home with her toddler son, born to one of her three jihadist husbands.

"To say that I regret my past words, any pain that I caused my family and any concerns I would cause my country would be hard for me to really express properly," she said in a handwritten note to her lawyer.

Tough to lose US citizenship 
The US decision on Muthana comes amid rising debate in Europe on the nationality of extremists. Britain recently revoked the citizenship of Shamina Begum, who similarly traveled to Syria and wants to return to her country of birth.

Britain asserted that she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship due to her heritage, but the Dhaka government on Wednesday denied that she was eligible, leading her to become effectively stateless.

US citizenship is significantly more difficult to lose. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War as slavery was abolished, establishes that anyone born in the country is a citizen with full rights.

The US Supreme Court in the landmark 1967 Afroyim decision rejected the government's attempt to revoke the nationality of a Polish-born naturalized American after he voted in Israel.

And last year a federal judge rejected a bid to strip the nationality of a Pakistani-born naturalized American who was convicted in a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

But Trump has campaigned on a hard line over immigration and raised the prospect of ending birthright citizenship ahead of last year's congressional elections.

In 2011, President Barack Obama ordered drone strikes that killed two Americans in Yemen — prominent Al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son — but did not believe it was possible to revoke citizenship.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday he is barring a US-born former Islamic State propagandist from returning home, making the highly unusual case that she is not a US citizen.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday he is barring a US-born former Islamic State propagandist from returning home, making the highly unusual case that she is not a US citizen. Trump's refusal to admit 24-year-old Hoda Muthana comes just as he is pressing Europeans to repatriate their own Islamic State fighters and will likely face legal challenges, with US citizenship extremely difficult to lose. Trump said on Twitter he has "instructed" Secretary of State Mike Pompeo "not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the country" — a break with usual US protocol not to comment on individuals' immigration issues. I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2019 × "Ms. Hoda Muthana is not a US citizen and will not be admitted into the United States," Pompeo said in a terse statement. "She does not have any legal basis, no valid US passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States," he added. The US generally grants citizenship to everyone born on its soil and the Alabama-raised Muthana is believed to have traveled to Syria on a US passport. But a US official said a later investigation showed that she had not been entitled to her passport, adding: "Ms. Muthana's citizenship has not been revoked because she was never a citizen." Officials declined further comment but in a loophole that could boost the government case, Muthana's father had been a diplomat from Yemen -- and children of diplomats are not automatically given citizenship. Muthana's lawyer, Hassan Shilby, showed a birth certificate that demonstrated she was born in New Jersey in 1994 and said her father had ceased being a diplomat "months and months" before her birth. "She is a US citizen. She had a valid passport. She may have broken the law and, if she has, she's willing to pay the price," Shilby told AFP at his office in Tampa. He said Muthana wanted due process and was willing to go to prison if convicted. "We cannot get to a point where we simply strip citizenship from those who break the law. That's not what America is about. We have one of the greatest legal systems in the world, and we have to abide by it." US-born and radicalised Just this weekend, Trump took to Twitter to chastise European allies that have not taken back hundreds of Islamic State prisoners caught in Syria, where Trump plans to withdraw US troops. Comparatively few Americans have embraced radical Islam, with the Counter Extremism Project at George Washington University identifying 64 who went to join the Islamic State group in Syria or Iraq. Muthana, raised in a strict household in Hoover, Alabama, said she was brainwashed by social media messages and headed to Syria without her parents' knowledge in 2014. Shortly afterward, Muthana posted on Twitter a picture of herself and three other women who appeared to torch their Western passports, including an American one. She went on to post vivid calls on social media to kill Americans, glorifying the ruthless extremist group notorious for its beheadings that for a time ruled vast swathes of Syria and Iraq. But with the Islamic State group down to its last stretch of land, Muthana said she has renounced extremism and wants to return home with her toddler son, born to one of her three jihadist husbands. "To say that I regret my past words, any pain that I caused my family and any concerns I would cause my country would be hard for me to really express properly," she said in a handwritten note to her lawyer. Tough to lose US citizenship The US decision on Muthana comes amid rising debate in Europe on the nationality of extremists. Britain recently revoked the citizenship of Shamina Begum, who similarly traveled to Syria and wants to return to her country of birth. Britain asserted that she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship due to her heritage, but the Dhaka government on Wednesday denied that she was eligible, leading her to become effectively stateless. US citizenship is significantly more difficult to lose. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War as slavery was abolished, establishes that anyone born in the country is a citizen with full rights. The US Supreme Court in the landmark 1967 Afroyim decision rejected the government's attempt to revoke the nationality of a Polish-born naturalized American after he voted in Israel. And last year a federal judge rejected a bid to strip the nationality of a Pakistani-born naturalized American who was convicted in a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. But Trump has campaigned on a hard line over immigration and raised the prospect of ending birthright citizenship ahead of last year's congressional elections. In 2011, President Barack Obama ordered drone strikes that killed two Americans in Yemen — prominent Al-Qaeda preacher Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son — but did not believe it was possible to revoke citizenship.

Trump says US woman who joined Islamic State cannot return

A top adviser to Donald Trump said Sunday that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-signs-border-wall-deal-197774">president's emergency declaration</a> could allow "hundreds of miles" of barriers to be built on the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/no-decision-made-on-spending-for-trumps-wall-pentagon-chief-197844">Mexican border </a>before the 2020 election.

"You're looking at hundreds of miles," Stephen Miller said on Fox News Sunday, "probably a couple hundred miles" by September 2020, two months before the election.

Trump has made clear he plans to exploit the issue in his re-election campaign, even amid sharp criticism from Democrats, rights groups, border-state landowners — and several prominent Republicans.

The president on Friday invoked a "national emergency" to justify tapping military and other funds for barrier construction, after Congress approved less than a fourth the $5.7 billion he had sought for border security.

Miller, echoing Trump's arguments, said that an unsecured border allowed drugs and criminals to pour into the country. He dismissed government statistics showing illegal entries had fallen.

"You cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected," he said.

But asked to cite an example of a past president invoking an emergency after being denied funds by Congress, Miller could not do so. "If people don't like that, they can address it," he said.

An 'imminent' challenge

Given the near-certainty of legal challenges and of a possible blocking move in Congress, it is far from clear how quickly barrier construction can advance on the 1,950-mile (3,140-kilometer) border.

Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, told ABC his state would be filing a lawsuit against the project "definitely, and imminently."

He said California and other states had legal standing in the case because they risked losing moneys intended for military projects, disaster assistance and other purposes. Several states "will be harmed," he said.

Another Democrat, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said she thought Congress could pass a resolution to block Trump's action but might not be able to summon the votes to override a likely Trump veto.

Miller stopped just short of predicting a Trump veto, saying simply, "He will protect his national emergency declaration -- guaranteed."

Several Republican senators have decried the emergency declaration, saying it establishes a dangerous precedent and amounts to executive overreach. How they might vote on a resolution is unclear.

But one well-known Republican, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, is even entertaining a 2020 primary challenge to the president.&nbsp;

While his chances would appear slim, he argued Sunday on ABC that Americans cannot afford six more years of a president who "wants to divide the country" and is "reckless" in running up trillion-dollar deficits.&nbsp;

He said the emergency declaration was an example of Trump trying to "make himself seem indispensable," then added, "He's not indispensable at all."

A top adviser to Donald Trump said Sunday that the president's emergency declaration could allow "hundreds of miles" of barriers to be built on the Mexican border before the 2020 election.

A top adviser to Donald Trump said Sunday that the president's emergency declaration could allow "hundreds of miles" of barriers to be built on the Mexican border before the 2020 election. "You're looking at hundreds of miles," Stephen Miller said on Fox News Sunday, "probably a couple hundred miles" by September 2020, two months before the election. Trump has made clear he plans to exploit the issue in his re-election campaign, even amid sharp criticism from Democrats, rights groups, border-state landowners — and several prominent Republicans. The president on Friday invoked a "national emergency" to justify tapping military and other funds for barrier construction, after Congress approved less than a fourth the $5.7 billion he had sought for border security. Miller, echoing Trump's arguments, said that an unsecured border allowed drugs and criminals to pour into the country. He dismissed government statistics showing illegal entries had fallen. "You cannot have uncontrolled, unsecured areas of the border where people can pour in undetected," he said. But asked to cite an example of a past president invoking an emergency after being denied funds by Congress, Miller could not do so. "If people don't like that, they can address it," he said. An 'imminent' challenge Given the near-certainty of legal challenges and of a possible blocking move in Congress, it is far from clear how quickly barrier construction can advance on the 1,950-mile (3,140-kilometer) border. Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, told ABC his state would be filing a lawsuit against the project "definitely, and imminently." He said California and other states had legal standing in the case because they risked losing moneys intended for military projects, disaster assistance and other purposes. Several states "will be harmed," he said. Another Democrat, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said she thought Congress could pass a resolution to block Trump's action but might not be able to summon the votes to override a likely Trump veto. Miller stopped just short of predicting a Trump veto, saying simply, "He will protect his national emergency declaration -- guaranteed." Several Republican senators have decried the emergency declaration, saying it establishes a dangerous precedent and amounts to executive overreach. How they might vote on a resolution is unclear. But one well-known Republican, former Massachusetts governor William Weld, is even entertaining a 2020 primary challenge to the president. While his chances would appear slim, he argued Sunday on ABC that Americans cannot afford six more years of a president who "wants to divide the country" and is "reckless" in running up trillion-dollar deficits. He said the emergency declaration was an example of Trump trying to "make himself seem indispensable," then added, "He's not indispensable at all."

Trump aide Stephen Miller predicts 'hundreds of miles' of border wall before 2020 election

By Chris Edelson

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, after Congress, in its new spending bill, denied him the full money to build it.

“We’re talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs,” Trump said in a speech on February 15 before signing the declaration.

Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi warned Trump against declaring a national emergency, saying that it set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to use that power. A number of liberal organizations have threatened to file challenges in court on the grounds that Trump’s move is an abuse of power.

But will the courts step in? What is Congress’s role in this situation?

As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress.

Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent.

The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

Now the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of passive spectator?

Gaining congressional approval

Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorization. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions.

This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labor strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a preexisting statute on the books weighed against Truman.

When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible.

Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted.

Congress’s role

Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes.

Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law.

The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in US waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute.

Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action.

For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal.

Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. It is far from clear that courts will strike down Trump’s national emergency.

By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote.

That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress.

Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge.

All eyes should be on Congress.

(Chris Edelson is&nbsp;Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Chris Edelson President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, after Congress, in its new spending bill, denied him the full money to build it.

By Chris Edelson President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to pay for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, after Congress, in its new spending bill, denied him the full money to build it. “We’re talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs,” Trump said in a speech on February 15 before signing the declaration. Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi warned Trump against declaring a national emergency, saying that it set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to use that power. A number of liberal organizations have threatened to file challenges in court on the grounds that Trump’s move is an abuse of power. But will the courts step in? What is Congress’s role in this situation? As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress. Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent. The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency. Now the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of passive spectator? Gaining congressional approval Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorization. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions. This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labor strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a preexisting statute on the books weighed against Truman. When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible. Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted. Congress’s role Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes. Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law. The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in US waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute. Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute. Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action. For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal. Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. It is far from clear that courts will strike down Trump’s national emergency. By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress. Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. All eyes should be on Congress. (Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs.) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Can Congress or the courts reverse Trump’s national emergency?

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Saturday that no decision has been taken on funding President Donald Trump's border wall with Mexico, a project that may come partly from redirected military funds.

Trump on Friday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-signs-border-wall-deal-197774">declared a national emergency</a> to address what he called an "invasion" of drugs, gangs, human traffickers and undocumented migrants over the US border with Mexico.

The declaration means he would be able to sidestep Congress to access federal funds from elsewhere to help pay for building the border wall. The move however was immediatly challenged in court.

"So very deliberately, we have not made any decisions. ... There has been no determination by me," Shanahan said on the way home from Germany.

Trump wanted Congress to authorize $5.7 billion for a wall along parts of the border, but lawmakers provided just $1.375 billion for barriers, not a solid concrete wall.

The White House said Friday that Trump will access $6.1 billion from two Pentagon sources: $3.6 billion from a military construction fund, and $2.5 billion from Defense Department counter-drug activity funds.

"We always anticipated that this would create a lot of attention and since money potentially could be redirected, you can imagine the concerns this generates," Shanahan said.

The Pentagon chief said he would "review that analysis now that the emergency has been declared. Based on that analysis, we can do an assessment of what would be appropriate."

He added: "We are following the law. We are using the rules. We are not bending the rules."

As a candidate, Trump repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for a wall.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Saturday that no decision has been taken on funding President Donald Trump's border wall with Mexico, a project that may come partly from redirected military funds.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan said Saturday that no decision has been taken on funding President Donald Trump's border wall with Mexico, a project that may come partly from redirected military funds. Trump on Friday declared a national emergency to address what he called an "invasion" of drugs, gangs, human traffickers and undocumented migrants over the US border with Mexico. The declaration means he would be able to sidestep Congress to access federal funds from elsewhere to help pay for building the border wall. The move however was immediatly challenged in court. "So very deliberately, we have not made any decisions. ... There has been no determination by me," Shanahan said on the way home from Germany. Trump wanted Congress to authorize $5.7 billion for a wall along parts of the border, but lawmakers provided just $1.375 billion for barriers, not a solid concrete wall. The White House said Friday that Trump will access $6.1 billion from two Pentagon sources: $3.6 billion from a military construction fund, and $2.5 billion from Defense Department counter-drug activity funds. "We always anticipated that this would create a lot of attention and since money potentially could be redirected, you can imagine the concerns this generates," Shanahan said. The Pentagon chief said he would "review that analysis now that the emergency has been declared. Based on that analysis, we can do an assessment of what would be appropriate." He added: "We are following the law. We are using the rules. We are not bending the rules." As a candidate, Trump repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for a wall.

No decision made on spending for Trump's wall: Pentagon chief

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will arrive in Vietnam on February&nbsp;25 ahead of a planned second summit with US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, three sources with direct knowledge of Kim's schedule told Reuters on Saturday.

Trump and Kim are due to meet in Hanoi on February&nbsp;27 and 28 following their historic first meeting last June in Singapore. US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday Washington aims to "get as far down the road as we can" at the summit.

Kim will meet with Vietnamese officials when he arrives in Hanoi, said the sources, who requested anonymity citing the sensitivity and secrecy surrounding the movements of the North Korean leader.

He will also visit the Vietnamese manufacturing base of Bac Ninh and the industrial port town of Hai Phong, one source said.

Vietnam's president and general secretary of the ruling Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong, will meet Kim ahead of a planned trip by Trong to neighbouring Laos, one of the sources with direct knowledge told Reuters.

A Reuters witness saw Kim's close aide, Kim Chang Son, in Hanoi on Saturday visiting a government guesthouse and the Metropole and Melia hotels in the centre of the capital.

Reuters was first to report last month that Hanoi was preparing to receive Kim for a state visit this month.

Communist-ruled Vietnam, which has embraced economic reforms and developed close diplomatic ties with its former foe the United States, has been widely touted as a model of reform for isolated and impoverished North Korea.

The former Cold War allies, which share a similar socialist ideology and exchanged military and political support during the Vietnam War, are eyeing a new chapter in relations following Hanoi's opening up and embrace of the West.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will arrive in Vietnam on February 25 ahead of a planned second summit with US President Donald Trump, three sources with direct knowledge of Kim's schedule told Reuters on Saturday.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will arrive in Vietnam on February 25 ahead of a planned second summit with US President Donald Trump, three sources with direct knowledge of Kim's schedule told Reuters on Saturday. Trump and Kim are due to meet in Hanoi on February 27 and 28 following their historic first meeting last June in Singapore. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday Washington aims to "get as far down the road as we can" at the summit. Kim will meet with Vietnamese officials when he arrives in Hanoi, said the sources, who requested anonymity citing the sensitivity and secrecy surrounding the movements of the North Korean leader. He will also visit the Vietnamese manufacturing base of Bac Ninh and the industrial port town of Hai Phong, one source said. Vietnam's president and general secretary of the ruling Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong, will meet Kim ahead of a planned trip by Trong to neighbouring Laos, one of the sources with direct knowledge told Reuters. A Reuters witness saw Kim's close aide, Kim Chang Son, in Hanoi on Saturday visiting a government guesthouse and the Metropole and Melia hotels in the centre of the capital. Reuters was first to report last month that Hanoi was preparing to receive Kim for a state visit this month. Communist-ruled Vietnam, which has embraced economic reforms and developed close diplomatic ties with its former foe the United States, has been widely touted as a model of reform for isolated and impoverished North Korea. The former Cold War allies, which share a similar socialist ideology and exchanged military and political support during the Vietnam War, are eyeing a new chapter in relations following Hanoi's opening up and embrace of the West.

Kim Jong Un to arrive in Vietnam on February 25 ahead of Trump summit

South Korea's presidential Blue House pushed back on Wednesday against comments by US President Donald Trump that suggested <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/south-korea-signs-deal-to-pay-more-for-us-troops-after-trump-demand-196371">Seoul had agreed to pay $500 million more </a>towards maintaining US troops in the country.

Trump said at a cabinet meeting in Washington on Tuesday Seoul had agreed to pay $500 million more as part of an agreement sharing the cost of keeping roughly 28,500 American troops stationed in South Korea.

"They were paying about $500 million for $5 billion worth of protection," Trump said. "And we have to do better than that. So they`ve agreed to pay $500 million more."

Under the previous agreement - which lapsed amid disagreements in December - South Korea contributed 960 billion won ($857 million) in 2018.

South Korean and American officials initialled an agreement on Sunday under which Seoul would increase its contribution to just under 1.04 trillion won ($927 million), an increase of about $70.3 million.

Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House in Seoul, said when asked about Trump`s $500 million figure that it "shouldn`t be taken as a fait accompli".

Washington demanded during the negotiations that South Korea pay 50 per cent more than its 2018 contribution, according to South Korean officials. The new agreement amounts to an increase of about 8 per cent.

The agreement signed on Sunday must still be approved by South Korea`s parliament. Kim said it was valid for only one year, with the possibility of an extension for another year if both sides agreed.

"Both sides will consider whether a raise is needed and it`s also possible that they would agree to maintain the current level," Kim said.

The two sides had struggled to reach a breakthrough, despite at least 10 rounds of talks since March, amid Trump`s repeated calls for a sharp increase in South Korea`s contribution.

Trump said in his cabinet comments on Tuesday the relationship with South Korea was "great" but that the United States lost "a tremendous amount of money" defending its ally.

South Korea's presidential Blue House pushed back on Wednesday against comments by US President Donald Trump that suggested Seoul had agreed to pay $500 million more towards maintaining US troops in the country.

South Korea's presidential Blue House pushed back on Wednesday against comments by US President Donald Trump that suggested Seoul had agreed to pay $500 million more towards maintaining US troops in the country. Trump said at a cabinet meeting in Washington on Tuesday Seoul had agreed to pay $500 million more as part of an agreement sharing the cost of keeping roughly 28,500 American troops stationed in South Korea. "They were paying about $500 million for $5 billion worth of protection," Trump said. "And we have to do better than that. So they`ve agreed to pay $500 million more." Under the previous agreement - which lapsed amid disagreements in December - South Korea contributed 960 billion won ($857 million) in 2018. South Korean and American officials initialled an agreement on Sunday under which Seoul would increase its contribution to just under 1.04 trillion won ($927 million), an increase of about $70.3 million. Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House in Seoul, said when asked about Trump`s $500 million figure that it "shouldn`t be taken as a fait accompli". Washington demanded during the negotiations that South Korea pay 50 per cent more than its 2018 contribution, according to South Korean officials. The new agreement amounts to an increase of about 8 per cent. The agreement signed on Sunday must still be approved by South Korea`s parliament. Kim said it was valid for only one year, with the possibility of an extension for another year if both sides agreed. "Both sides will consider whether a raise is needed and it`s also possible that they would agree to maintain the current level," Kim said. The two sides had struggled to reach a breakthrough, despite at least 10 rounds of talks since March, amid Trump`s repeated calls for a sharp increase in South Korea`s contribution. Trump said in his cabinet comments on Tuesday the relationship with South Korea was "great" but that the United States lost "a tremendous amount of money" defending its ally.

South Korea pushes back at Trump claims about more money for troop agreement

US President Donald Trump has nominated a senior Treasury<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-plans-to-nominate-treasurys-malpass-to-lead-world-bank-politico-195200"> official David Malpass</a> as the next president of the World Bank.

If voted by the Directors of the World Bank Group, he would replace Jim Yong Kim as the president of the World Bank, a position which has traditionally been held by Americans.&nbsp;

The position of Managing Director of International Monetary Fund has gone to Europe.

Given the vote share of various countries inside World Bank, the confirmation of Malpass as its next president is now a mere formality.&nbsp;

Announcing his nomination on Wednesday, Trump declared Malpass as a "special man", and as someone who was eminently qualified for the position.

In his current capacity as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, Malpass, 62, oversees the working of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.&nbsp;

An internationally renowned economist, Malpass brings 40 years of experience in economics, finance, government, and foreign policy to his new assignment, Trump said.

After receiving a degree in international economics from Georgetown University's prestigious School of Foreign Service, Malpass served as deputy assistant secretary of the treasury under President Ronald Reagan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President George H W Bush.

"The Wall Street Journal just said today in an editorial that David Malpass is an excellent choice, which is America is the largest contributor to the World Bank, giving it over $1 billion every year," Trump said.

"My administration has made it a top priority to ensure that US taxpayers dollars are spent effectively and wisely, serve American interests and defend the American values," he added.

"Malpass is a strong advocate for accountability at the World Bank for a long time," said the US president.&nbsp;

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Trump had made an excellent choice by nominating Malpass to serve as President of the World Bank.

"David has worked closely with me at the Treasury Department and understands the President's pro-growth economic agenda that has led to the strongest US economy and job market in generations," he said.

"As Under Secretary, he successfully negotiated a capital increase and reform package to focus the World Bank on its core mission of lifting up the standard of living in lower-income countries," said Mnuchin who was assisted by Trump's daughter and senior presidential advisor Ivanka Trump in the selection process.

"David's extensive knowledge of the World Bank's challenges and opportunities make him a uniquely qualified steward of a great institution that is operating below its full potential," Ivanka Trump said.

"David's leadership was invaluable in the design and implementation of the World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative (We-Fi) and I look forward to continuing our work together to realise the mission of the Bank, to eliminate poverty and build prosperity, by economically empowering women in the developing world," she said.

Scott Morris, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and former US Treasury deputy assistant secretary for development finance and debt, said as the US candidate, Malpass will have a lot of work to do to convince other shareholders that he was prepared to move beyond his past statements and track record when it comes to the World Bank's agenda.&nbsp;

"That includes the bank's critical role in climate finance and the need for constructive engagement with China. The rest of the world holds 84% of the voting power at the World Bank. It's fully within their ability to block an unsuitable nominee," Morris, who played a leading role in Jim Kim's campaign for World Bank president said.

US President Donald Trump has nominated a senior Treasury official David Malpass as the next president of the World Bank. If voted by the Directors of the World Bank Group, he would replace Jim Yong Kim as the president of the World Bank, a position which has traditionally been held by Americans.

US President Donald Trump has nominated a senior Treasury official David Malpass as the next president of the World Bank. If voted by the Directors of the World Bank Group, he would replace Jim Yong Kim as the president of the World Bank, a position which has traditionally been held by Americans. The position of Managing Director of International Monetary Fund has gone to Europe. Given the vote share of various countries inside World Bank, the confirmation of Malpass as its next president is now a mere formality. Announcing his nomination on Wednesday, Trump declared Malpass as a "special man", and as someone who was eminently qualified for the position. In his current capacity as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, Malpass, 62, oversees the working of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. An internationally renowned economist, Malpass brings 40 years of experience in economics, finance, government, and foreign policy to his new assignment, Trump said. After receiving a degree in international economics from Georgetown University's prestigious School of Foreign Service, Malpass served as deputy assistant secretary of the treasury under President Ronald Reagan and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President George H W Bush. "The Wall Street Journal just said today in an editorial that David Malpass is an excellent choice, which is America is the largest contributor to the World Bank, giving it over $1 billion every year," Trump said. "My administration has made it a top priority to ensure that US taxpayers dollars are spent effectively and wisely, serve American interests and defend the American values," he added. "Malpass is a strong advocate for accountability at the World Bank for a long time," said the US president. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Trump had made an excellent choice by nominating Malpass to serve as President of the World Bank. "David has worked closely with me at the Treasury Department and understands the President's pro-growth economic agenda that has led to the strongest US economy and job market in generations," he said. "As Under Secretary, he successfully negotiated a capital increase and reform package to focus the World Bank on its core mission of lifting up the standard of living in lower-income countries," said Mnuchin who was assisted by Trump's daughter and senior presidential advisor Ivanka Trump in the selection process. "David's extensive knowledge of the World Bank's challenges and opportunities make him a uniquely qualified steward of a great institution that is operating below its full potential," Ivanka Trump said. "David's leadership was invaluable in the design and implementation of the World Bank's Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative (We-Fi) and I look forward to continuing our work together to realise the mission of the Bank, to eliminate poverty and build prosperity, by economically empowering women in the developing world," she said. Scott Morris, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and former US Treasury deputy assistant secretary for development finance and debt, said as the US candidate, Malpass will have a lot of work to do to convince other shareholders that he was prepared to move beyond his past statements and track record when it comes to the World Bank's agenda. "That includes the bank's critical role in climate finance and the need for constructive engagement with China. The rest of the world holds 84% of the voting power at the World Bank. It's fully within their ability to block an unsuitable nominee," Morris, who played a leading role in Jim Kim's campaign for World Bank president said.

Trump nominates US treasury official David Malpass for World Bank president

The US Senate has approved by a large majority an amendment<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-keep-military-forces-in-syria-despite-israeli-threats-says-iran-190763"> critical of President Donald Trump's</a> decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan, in a sign of the deep discontent caused by the policies within his own Republican ranks.

The resolution was sponsored by the Republican leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell, who said last week the measure "would acknowledge the plain fact that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-trump-slowed-rush-for-syria-exits-after-huddling-in-iraq-190676">Al-Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates </a>in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to our nation."

It passed by a majority of 70 to 26 - opposed by only three of the 53 Senate Republicans. The amendment will eventually be incorporated into a broader security law on the Middle East.

According to the text, the "precipitous withdrawal of United States forces" from either country "could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security."

In December, Trump tweeted plans to remove America's 2,000 troops out of Syria, arguing that the Islamic State group had been defeated, even though his intelligence chiefs testified last week that the jihadists remain a potent threat and are seeking a comeback.

The president has also vowed to pull half of the 14,000-strong American force from Afghanistan, where the US has had a military presence since 2001, citing the high cost in blood and treasure.

Senators, including prominent Republicans, inflicted a resounding rebuke to the president in December, holding the Saudi crown prince responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi after the Trump administration had been largely supportive of Prince Mohammed bin Salman.&nbsp;

The US Senate has approved by a large majority an amendment critical of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan, in a sign of the deep discontent caused by the policies within his own Republican ranks.

The US Senate has approved by a large majority an amendment critical of President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan, in a sign of the deep discontent caused by the policies within his own Republican ranks. The resolution was sponsored by the Republican leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell, who said last week the measure "would acknowledge the plain fact that Al-Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose a serious threat to our nation." It passed by a majority of 70 to 26 - opposed by only three of the 53 Senate Republicans. The amendment will eventually be incorporated into a broader security law on the Middle East. According to the text, the "precipitous withdrawal of United States forces" from either country "could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security." In December, Trump tweeted plans to remove America's 2,000 troops out of Syria, arguing that the Islamic State group had been defeated, even though his intelligence chiefs testified last week that the jihadists remain a potent threat and are seeking a comeback. The president has also vowed to pull half of the 14,000-strong American force from Afghanistan, where the US has had a military presence since 2001, citing the high cost in blood and treasure. Senators, including prominent Republicans, inflicted a resounding rebuke to the president in December, holding the Saudi crown prince responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi after the Trump administration had been largely supportive of Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

'Withdrawal risks hard-won gains & national security': US Senate resolution on Trump's Syria pull out

US President Donald Trump is serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the Taliban told AFP Friday, outlining the "Islamic system" comprising "all Afghans" that the group says it hopes to establish under any peace deal.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid spoke to AFP via WhatsApp a day after the US said talks with the militants are "on the right path", fuelling speculation of a breakthrough in the 17-year conflict.

The US president's apparent eagerness to pull troops out has weighed on the negotiations, which culminated with six straight days of meetings in Qatar last week.

"An agreement was reached on a principle framework... Which, if implemented, and if the Americans take honest steps and stick to it truthfully, then God willing we are hopeful that the Americans will end the occupation of Afghanistan," Mujahid said.

"It appears that Trump is serious," the Taliban spokesman continued. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad also spoke this week of a "draft framework" for a deal, though he warned that major hurdles -- including any US withdrawal -- remain.

Experts have hailed the development as a milestone in the conflict. But it has prompted concerns from Afghans and observers who feared foreign troops could withdraw before a lasting peace is reached between the insurgents and the government in Kabul.

The Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996, imposing their brutal interpretation of Shariah law on the country until they were toppled in the US invasion of 2001.

They have since fought an insurgency demanding foreign troops leave and an Islamic state be re-established.

Mujahid said a foreign withdrawal was the first goal.

"Secondly, we want the establishment of an Islamic system," he continued, dampening tentative hopes among Afghans that the insurgents would agree to participate in the existing democratic system built since 2001.

He said they would establish such a system through "negotiations with different political sides, even if they have so far been under the umbrella of the invaders".

If the government in Kabul will not stand in the way, he added, "then of course there will be no need for war".

Mujahid said the insurgents are not seeking to monopolise power. "Inshallah (God willing) all Afghans, including different political sides" can take part, he told AFP.

Such a system would be based on the principle of shura, or council, with Islamic experts making decisions and "representatives of people and scholars" contributing.

Mujahid said the group was "100 percent hopeful" of establishing such a system.

He admitted that the Taliban regime of the 1990s experienced "a lot of economic, social and security problems" -- a key one being how to separate men from women.

Under the Taliban women were largely confined to their homes, venturing outside only with a male escort and hidden beneath a burqa. Girls education was banned and women were prohibited from the workplace save in some few areas such as medicine.

Now, the militants "don't oppose the education of women", Mujahid said. "We will try to provide a safe environment for the education and work of women," he told AFP, adding "whatever is permissible for women in Islamic Sharia will be allowed".

Many women have spoken to AFP of their fears that a peace deal could come at the cost of the few, hard-won rights they have managed to establish in the deeply patriarchal, conservative country since 2001.

Mujahid said the next round of talks with the US will again take place in Doha starting February 25.

The US has said talks will continue, but not confirmed any date. Khalilzad tweeted late Thursday that both sides had made "significant progress on two vital issues: counter terrorism and troop withdrawal".

But that "doesn't mean we're done", he continued, adding work continues on both issues as well as a ceasefire and convincing the Taliban to speak to the Afghan government -- all issues on which attempts at peace negotiations have foundered in the past.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump is serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the Taliban told AFP Friday, outlining the "Islamic system" comprising "all Afghans" that the group says it hopes to establish under any peace deal.

US President Donald Trump is serious about getting out of Afghanistan, the Taliban told AFP Friday, outlining the "Islamic system" comprising "all Afghans" that the group says it hopes to establish under any peace deal. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid spoke to AFP via WhatsApp a day after the US said talks with the militants are "on the right path", fuelling speculation of a breakthrough in the 17-year conflict. The US president's apparent eagerness to pull troops out has weighed on the negotiations, which culminated with six straight days of meetings in Qatar last week. "An agreement was reached on a principle framework... Which, if implemented, and if the Americans take honest steps and stick to it truthfully, then God willing we are hopeful that the Americans will end the occupation of Afghanistan," Mujahid said. "It appears that Trump is serious," the Taliban spokesman continued. US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad also spoke this week of a "draft framework" for a deal, though he warned that major hurdles -- including any US withdrawal -- remain. Experts have hailed the development as a milestone in the conflict. But it has prompted concerns from Afghans and observers who feared foreign troops could withdraw before a lasting peace is reached between the insurgents and the government in Kabul. The Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996, imposing their brutal interpretation of Shariah law on the country until they were toppled in the US invasion of 2001. They have since fought an insurgency demanding foreign troops leave and an Islamic state be re-established. Mujahid said a foreign withdrawal was the first goal. "Secondly, we want the establishment of an Islamic system," he continued, dampening tentative hopes among Afghans that the insurgents would agree to participate in the existing democratic system built since 2001. He said they would establish such a system through "negotiations with different political sides, even if they have so far been under the umbrella of the invaders". If the government in Kabul will not stand in the way, he added, "then of course there will be no need for war". Mujahid said the insurgents are not seeking to monopolise power. "Inshallah (God willing) all Afghans, including different political sides" can take part, he told AFP. Such a system would be based on the principle of shura, or council, with Islamic experts making decisions and "representatives of people and scholars" contributing. Mujahid said the group was "100 percent hopeful" of establishing such a system. He admitted that the Taliban regime of the 1990s experienced "a lot of economic, social and security problems" -- a key one being how to separate men from women. Under the Taliban women were largely confined to their homes, venturing outside only with a male escort and hidden beneath a burqa. Girls education was banned and women were prohibited from the workplace save in some few areas such as medicine. Now, the militants "don't oppose the education of women", Mujahid said. "We will try to provide a safe environment for the education and work of women," he told AFP, adding "whatever is permissible for women in Islamic Sharia will be allowed". Many women have spoken to AFP of their fears that a peace deal could come at the cost of the few, hard-won rights they have managed to establish in the deeply patriarchal, conservative country since 2001. Mujahid said the next round of talks with the US will again take place in Doha starting February 25. The US has said talks will continue, but not confirmed any date. Khalilzad tweeted late Thursday that both sides had made "significant progress on two vital issues: counter terrorism and troop withdrawal". But that "doesn't mean we're done", he continued, adding work continues on both issues as well as a ceasefire and convincing the Taliban to speak to the Afghan government -- all issues on which attempts at peace negotiations have foundered in the past.

Trump 'serious' about Afghan withdrawal: Taliban

Negotiations in Afghanistan are going well, US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday after US officials earlier this week said there had been significant progress in talks to end 17 years of war in the country.

Talks "are proceeding well," Trump wrote on Twitter. He did not address any possible peace accord with the Taliban or the presence of US troops in Afghanistan.

On Monday, US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad told the New York Times that the United States and the insurgent group had sketched the outlines of an eventual peace deal. Analysts, however, said there was no sign that the Taliban had agreed to US demands.

A US State Department spokesman said this week the talks had been "positive" but that no agreement had been reached.

The Trump administration has moved toward withdrawals of US forces after years of overseas deployments. A US official said last month that Trump planned to withdraw more than 5,000 of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

But Trump's fellow Republican US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday offered legislation urging the United States to keep troops in Afghanistan as well as Syria, although it was uncertain whether it would become law

Negotiations in Afghanistan are going well, US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday after US officials earlier this week said there had been significant progress in talks to end 17 years of war in the country.

Negotiations in Afghanistan are going well, US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday after US officials earlier this week said there had been significant progress in talks to end 17 years of war in the country. Talks "are proceeding well," Trump wrote on Twitter. He did not address any possible peace accord with the Taliban or the presence of US troops in Afghanistan. On Monday, US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad told the New York Times that the United States and the insurgent group had sketched the outlines of an eventual peace deal. Analysts, however, said there was no sign that the Taliban had agreed to US demands. A US State Department spokesman said this week the talks had been "positive" but that no agreement had been reached. The Trump administration has moved toward withdrawals of US forces after years of overseas deployments. A US official said last month that Trump planned to withdraw more than 5,000 of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan. But Trump's fellow Republican US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday offered legislation urging the United States to keep troops in Afghanistan as well as Syria, although it was uncertain whether it would become law

Trump says Afghanistan talks 'proceeding well'

trump-0

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

trump 0

Trump vetoes measure to end his emergency declaration on border wall

Trump vows veto as Senate rebuke Mexico border emergency

US Senate Republican delivers blow to Trump border emergency

Trump's ex-lawyer Cohen says testimony 'could have been clearer': Lawyer

Defying Trump, Senate votes to end US support for Yemen war

Ties between Boeing and Trump run deep

News brief: Big stories of the day

I referred to Tim+Apple as Tim/Apple to save time & words, tweets Trump

The week that was, in pictures

Trump's communications director, Air Force Secretary resign

Trump says ex-lawyer Cohen asked him for a pardon, but he said no

Trump revokes policy requiring CIA to report drone strike casualties

Will be very, very disappointed, says Trump over reports of North Korea rebuilding rocket site

Gravitas: Trump's latest target: India

The world this week, in pictures

China welcomes US decision to suspend tariff hike

North Korea summit outcome 'regrettable' but progress made: Seoul

Dissidents detained in Hanoi as Trump-Kim summit opens

Trump meets North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi as second summit begins

Trump meets North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi as second summit begins

After Kim, Trump arrives in Hanoi for summit talks

Trump says US woman who joined Islamic State cannot return

Trump aide Stephen Miller predicts 'hundreds of miles' of border wall before 2020 election

Can Congress or the courts reverse Trump’s national emergency?

No decision made on spending for Trump's wall: Pentagon chief

Kim Jong Un to arrive in Vietnam on February 25 ahead of Trump summit