Mediaboss Marketing

Weve seen states fight the federal government before. In 1860 and 1861, it was the states that set off the conflict, taking up arms to oppose the new president. Today, its the new president who has initiated the break, vowing to punish states and cities that treat immigrants with respect and the environment with care, and against California and Los Angeles most of all.

In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump took dead aim at the policies that state and local governments have put in place to enhance public health and safety. He threatened them with withdrawal of federal funds if they remain sanctuary cities and no major city has claimed that status longer than Los Angeles, which has barred its police from cooperating in deportation operations since 1979. Trump also has pledged to abolish regulations that he claims hamper business, and he is almost certain to go after Californias ability to impose emission standards on cars and trucks that are stricter than federal requirements.

Since the day after the election, when Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and State Senate leader Kevin de Len announced they would resist Trumps attempts to impose nativist and racist policies on California, state leaders have almost welcomed the confrontation. Certainly they havent dodged it. Gov. Jerry Brown, in his State of the State address, said he would oppose the presidents oppressive initiatives. Mayors up and down the coast have promised to preserve their cities sanctuary status, even in the face of Trumps threats to reduce their federal funding.

Any such reductions will encounter a multitude of court challenges, many of them focusing on the question of which federal funds the administration can withhold. Cutting funds that bolster police work will likely pass muster with the courts, though the amount the feds currently devote to such work isnt all that large. Eliminating the more considerable funds that go to cities for other purposes say, community development grants may not be legal. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions on federal spending might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the purpose for which the funds are designated. That could pose a problem for Trump, since deportation efforts seem distinctly unrelated to, for instance, road building or research at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Caada Flintridge.

The logic behind sanctuary cities couldnt be more clear. Contrary to Trumps alternative facts, the great wave of immigration over the last 30 years coincides with an epochal decline in crime. The numbers of murders in Los Angeles County fell from 1,944 in 1993 to 681 last year. As a study from the National Academy of Sciences concluded, Immigrants are in fact muchless likelyto commit crime than natives, and the presence of large numbers of immigrants seems tolowercrime rates.One way to ensure that crime rates rise in a city like Los Angeles is to make many of its residents afraid to report dangerous behavior to the police, which, as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has stated, is exactly what compelling the police to engage in deportation activities would do.

Trumps efforts to weaken the states fuel emission standards could be more difficult to forestall than his assault on sanctuary cities. Should the state fail to blunt that attack in the courts, the legislature could devise a way around it by, say, enacting a higher sales tax on any new cars that exceed what the state standards would have been. Calling it the Trump Tax wouldnt be a bad idea.

Ultimately Californias defenses against the presidents policies will have to be just as extraordinary as Trumps attacks.

Lets say the courts grant the administration the authority to withhold all manner of federal funds from sanctuary states and cities. The most devastating move Trump could make would be to hold back Californias share of Medicaid and Childrens Health Insurance funding, which in 2015 came to roughly $55 billion, and today helps cover the health costs of more than 12 million state residents. California could then redirect tax payments from Washington to Sacramento that is, by increasing state taxes to cover the federal shortfall. Simultaneously, millions of Californians could decline to pay a commensurate amount on their federal income taxes (on the admittedly untested theory that massive coordinated tax evasion provides a level of safety-in-numbers that individual tax evasion does not).

An extreme response, to be sure, to an extreme provocation. But when it comes to dividing the nation in two, Trumps only peer as an American president note I didnt say a president of the United States is Jefferson Davis.

Harold Meyerson is executive editor of the American Prospect. He is a contributing writer to Opinion.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter@latimesopinionandFacebook

See original here:
How California can fight the extreme provocations of Donald Trump - Los Angeles Times

Threats of protest appear to have scuttled plans for President Trumps first visit to Wisconsin this week, CNN reportedon Tuesday.It would have been Trumps first visit to the state as president.

The 128th Air Refueling Wing, a military airport in Milwaukee, confirmed that itwas contacted by Trumps press team and informed that the president will not be coming to the state Thursday, as previously scheduled.Tech. Sgt. Meghan Skrepenski said the White House did not provide an exact reason for the cancellation; the White Househad just confirmed the planned trip on Monday.

Trump was expected to tour a Harley Davidson factory where he also planned to sign executive orders related to American manufacturing. But according to an unnamedTrump official, the trip was canceled after Harley Davidson officials expressed concern about the potential for protests. Leaders Trump planned to meet with in Wisconsin will reportedly travel to Washington, D.C. instead.

Massive protests have been underway across the country in recent days following Trumps controversial executive order banning the resettlement of refugees and a temporarytravel ban for seven majority-Muslim nations.

News of Trumps canceled visit was celebrated as a victory by protesters on social media Tuesday:

Donald Trump is a real tough guy when it comes to locking up a scared five-year-old boy trying to find his mother, DNC senior adviser Zac Petkansas said in response to the canceled visit. But as soon as he has to face the American people to defend his illegal anti-Muslim ban he chickens out.

Trump was last in Wisconsin in December, when he held a thank you tour stop. Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in Wisconsin since 1984.

Tuesdays sudden cancellation follows an announcement that Trumps White House was canceling the signing of a planned executive order on cyber security after Trump held a meeting with top cyber security experts marking the second time in less than a week the White House has scrapped the signing of an order.

In addition to the cyber order, the White House has postponed an announced order to the Justice Department to investigate Trumps unfounded allegations of voter fraud in the 2016.

Trump is still scheduled to attend theNational Prayer Breakfastat theHilton Hotelin Washington, D.C., on Thursday morning anannual event hosted by the U.S. Congress andThe Fellowship Foundation.

The rest is here:
Fearing protest, Donald Trump cancels trip to Wisconsin - Salon

New York Times

It's 'The Apprentice, Supreme Court Edition,' as Trump Summons Finalists to White House New York Times Mr. Trump, who has a penchant for the theatrical and loved teasing out suspense in his key appointments throughout the campaign, plans to bring his two top choices for the United States Supreme Court to the White House ahead of his announcement tonight ... Meet Donald Trump's possible Supreme Court picksCNBC Congressional Democrats Have Closed Ranks Against President TrumpTIME Democrats prepare for battle over Trump's supreme court nomineeThe Guardian Slate Magazine -Wall Street Journal all 783 news articles »

Read the original here:
It's 'The Apprentice, Supreme Court Edition,' as Trump Summons Finalists to White House - New York Times

On Monday night on CNN, Carl Bernstein made this proclamation: "The president and his presidency is in chaos."

It's a remarkable statement given that we are only 11 days into the presidency of Donald Trump. It's also very hard to dispute.

Consider this amazing and I do mean amazing WaPo story today about how Trump and his inner circle produced the very controversial executive order instituting a travel ban on refugees and all visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The story details the infighting and blame game among Trump's top advisers and includes some eye-popping lines.

Among them:

* "Defense Secretary James Mattis and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly fumed privately to associates over the weekend because they had been caught unaware by a travel ban that was drafted and set into action largely in secret by the White House, according to three people who have spoken with them."

*The problem theyve got is this is an off-Broadway performance of a show that is now the number one hit on Broadway, said former House speaker Newt Gingrich of the Trump administration. (Sidebar: Gingrich is an informal adviser to Trump!)

*A little bit of under-competence and a slight amount of insecurity can breed some paranoia and backstabbing, one White House official said of White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. We have to get Reince to relax into the job and become more competent, because hes seeing shadows where there are no shadows.

Any one of those lines is problematic in a normal White House. The quote from an anonymous White House official about Priebus who, let me emphasize, is the White House chief of staff, is stunning. If that line was used in "House of Cards," I would roll my eyes and say it would never happen in real life.

And, it's not just the Post story that shows the seeming tumult among Trump's senior advisers. A piece in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday details how Department of Homeland Security chief John Kelly is at odds with the White House over staffing in his organization. A Vanity Fair post details the struggles of Trump son-in-law and White House adviser Jared Kushner as he seeks to exert influence over the president.

Read any one of those stories and the word "chaos" jumps to mind. Or "turmoil." Or "dissension." All of them convey the same thing: Less than two weeks into his presidency, there is a knife fight happening daily among Trump's top aides.

Bernstein clearly meant his chaos comments in a negative way. Chaos, in traditional political thinking, is bad. It suggests a president who doesn't really have control over his people and a White House that resembles a roller coaster car shuddering as it travels at too high a speed down the tracks.

And, maybe that's all true. It's possible that the Trump train is on the verge of jumping the tracks. (Mixed metaphor alert!)

But, every indication from what we know of Trump the businessman and reality TV star suggests that he revels in the chaos, that he believes the chaos produces just the sort of results he likes.

Think back to the "boardroom" on "The Apprentice." Bring everybody in. Let them attack one another and level allegations. Consult with a few of your consiglieres George for the win! and then make a bold and, often, unpredictable decision. Yes, that was a TV show. But it was a TV show created by Trump (and Mark Burnett). That means that the way the show worked came directly out of Trump's brain and generally speaking represents his view of how things should work.

Remember that for Trump, appearances matter most. And he likes the perception of himself as the decider, the buck-stopper, the only one who can cut through all of the noise and battling egos to make the call. In order to make that image truly work, you need noise around you at all times. So Trump put in place a senior leadership team that would create it.

The other important point here is that Trump believes all of life business and politics included amounts to a sort of survival of the fittest/toughest. His critique of Hillary Clinton's health during the 2016 campaign was based on the idea that anyone who has a weak moment as Clinton did at a 9/11 memorial service can't possibly be up to the top job in the country. For Trump, the constant battles between his aides are a sort of real-life "Survivor" episode. The toughest SOB is the one Trump wants. And only through political combat can that be determined.

The combination of chaos, combat and constant sniping is not a bad thing in the worldview of Donald Trump. In fact, it is the one truly necessary thing.

Read more:
Donald Trump's White House is in chaos. And he loves it. - Washington Post

Yates was a remnant of the Obama administration, only in office until the Senate confirms Jeff Sessions as the next attorney general. But her dismissal reflected the sudden political forces unleashed in Washington in the early days of the Trump administration as the President seeks to impose his authority on the federal government and shows little patience for those who would block him from implementing core campaign pledges.

Democrats reacted with outrage to the night's dramatic events, warning that it called into question the independence of the Justice Department in the Trump administration.

"Trump has commenced a course of conduct that is Nixonian in its design and execution and threatens the long-vaunted independence of DOJ," Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers tweeted. "If dedicated gov officials deem his directives to be unlawful & unconstitutional, he will simply fire them as if gov is a reality show."

The dramatic move came soon after CNN reported Yates told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees.

"(Yates) has betrayed the Department of Justice," the White House statement said.

Dana Boente, who Trump appointed to succeed Yates as acting attorney general, rescinded Yates' guidance and instructed the Justice Department to "defend the lawful orders of our president."

Yates was fired as the administration was still recovering from the fury surrounding Trump's hardline immigration measures, including stinging criticism from some congressional Republicans who said the administration's process was far from smooth.

"They know it could've been done in a better way and my guess is they're going to try to clean it up," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters. "They probably learned that communication and the inter-agency process would probably be helpful."

But Trump's former GOP rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, jumped to the President's defense.

"After eight long years of a lawless Obama Department of Justice, it is fitting--and sad--that the very last act of the Obama DOJ is for the Acting AG to defy the newly elected President, refuse to enforce the law, and force the President to fire her," Cruz said in a statement.

Trump's immigration order has triggered one of the more significant moral and constitutional controversies in recent memory. But on a more fundamental level, it is raising basic questions about how Trump's White House will function.

On Monday evening, officials at the Department of Homeland Security were still spending hours in back-and-forth conversations with the White House. One source described receiving "cleared talking points" only to be called back minutes later to say they weren't right. The source said pages and pages of questions regarding interpretation of the travel bans were still being sent to the White House from the department.

"These sort of amateur hour hijinks are costing President Trump precious political capital ahead of his aggressive legislative push," said Howard Schweitzer, a former high-ranking official in Republican and Democratic administrations. "The PR debacle and failure to circulate this plan with leaders in Congress or our allies was a costly error and overwhelms any of the legitimate policies behind his order."

Trump's rocky opening days come just as the administration needs to be at the top of its game ahead of Trump's announcement of his Supreme Court pick Tuesday night.

Tuesday's unveiling of a Supreme Court nominee will test whether he can win over crucial backing in Washington. In a polarized political atmosphere, a seamless introduction of a potential justice would strain even the most experienced West Wing, let alone a staff that has only been in place for less than two weeks and is already under fire.

If the administration clean up on the immigration order succeeds, there may be no lingering political price to be paid. But if the Supreme Court push staggers out of the gate, the Trump team could face an early political crisis on two fronts that will cast doubt on its capacity to enact its ambitious congressional agenda.

All new administrations have teething problems and it's not unusual for even experienced West Wing staffs to fumble badly. The disastrous debut of the Obamacare website in 2013 played into GOP claims that the law was botched by an incompetent administration.

And there is no doubt that Trump is doing exactly what voters who rewarded him with 306 electoral votes sent him to Washington to do.

There is a strong sense in many parts of the country that the US government has been too lax in its vetting of Muslim visitors to the US out of a sense of political correctness. And while chaos reigned at the weekend, Trump's penchant for stirring confusion with his improvisational management style has often served him well as a businessman and in his short, successful political career.

Still, one of the president's central claims to the White House is that he, and only he, can cut through what he portrays as dire problems facing Americans. So any hint of incompetence could damage his presidential brand and undercut his claims that his business tycoon personality can get things done.

The administration's defense of its actions Monday followed a now familiar tactic -- attacking the media for its coverage and fogging the facts with an alternative narrative.

"I think this has been blown way out of proportion and exaggerated," said White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday. "I think frankly government functioned very well. That's the takeaway from this, that the system worked well, the country is safer for it."

The White House also made a case that the sudden change in policy was necessary to keep Americans safe from terrorism.

"We had 109 people that were temporarily detained. They were temporarily detained to make sure that the safety of the other 324 million Americans was put first. I don't see how that's a big problem," Spicer said.

Trump, meanwhile, said in a tweet that it would have been foolhardy to have announced his policy in advance, as it would tipped off terrorists.

"If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad 'dudes' out there!" Trump tweeted Monday.

Though advancing a hardball national security argument, Spicer appeared to indicate on Monday there was no specific intelligence suggesting an attack was imminent from nationals of any of the seven listed nations.

"I think what we're trying to say is you don't know when the next threat is coming," Spicer said.

Terrorism experts have pointed out, however, that none of the terror attacks on US soil since 9/11 emanated from any of the seven nations targeted by Trump.

The sense of administrative confusion in the government also undermines White House claims that everything went smoothly. Minutes before Trump signed the order in the Oval Office on Friday, his counsellor Kellyanne Conway told reporters that the immigration measure would not be issued that day. And in the hours after its release the White House struggled to explain exactly what it meant and which nations it would impact.

Meanwhile, it seems instructions for how to enforce the new rules did not reach the officials on the front line at America's airports sparking delays and confusion.

"At the operator level, there was confusion and that needed to be flushed out and perhaps still needs to be flushed out," said James Norton, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Department of Homeland Security during the Bush administration.

America's borders are policed by a diverse collection of officials from Customs, Immigration and Citizenship agencies and not all were clear what the new rules entailed.

That may explain uncertainty over whether green card holders were affected.

US allies were still puzzled Monday with the implications of the ruling. Britain said UK dual nationals would not be stopped from entering the US. Germany was not so sure.

There was also intense frustration on Capitol Hill, where GOP aides rejected the rationale that they were kept in the dark for national security reasons.

"If that's their approach going forward in terms of engaging the Hill on national security issues, then they're going to find out that the results are more than just a weekend of bad press," said one aide who asked not to speak for attribution.

Spicer denied that the White House had left its congressional allies and government agencies in the dark.

"Everybody was kept in the loop at the level necessary to make sure that we rolled it out properly," he said.

But Schweitzer, who has piloted the Senate confirmation process of 20 presidential nominees, warned that if the White House did not up its managerial game, it would be offering an opening to its opponents.

"Trump's executive order was poorly written and implemented, and has generated so much negative press that it's reinforcing the Left's image of the Trump White House as xenophobic, incompetent hardliners," he said.

Read this article:
Donald Trump's early crisis - CNN