The Tea Partier 's Quandary : What To Make Of Trump 's Rise ?\nDonald Trump and Ted Cruz have spent most of the presidential race avoiding direct confrontations with each other . But the men are in first and second place in the polls , so that 's been straining the love .\nThis week , as NPR Politics put it , Trump went `` birther '' on his rival , questioning whether Cruz is even eligible for the White House because he was born in Canada . ( Many legal scholars say he is . )\nBut as the two candidates continue to lead GOP polls , some observers on the Republican side have expressed fear that either man — and Trump , in particular — will win the nomination . And that concern has not been limited to those in the party 's establishment .\nCue Matt Kibbe , former head of the tea party group FreedomWorks . Kibbe — who left FreedomWorks to lead Concerned American Voters , a superPAC supporting Sen. Rand Paul — says that while Trump taps into some of the same anxiety shared by tea partiers over political dysfunction , the businessman 's rise also signifies something much more dire .\n`` I think if Donald Trump becomes the nominee , you 're almost guaranteed a third-party challenge , perhaps from the Republican side and the Democratic side , '' Kibbe tells NPR 's Scott Simon . `` And it might also lead to the death of the Republican party . ''\nOn the future of the candidate he supports , Rand Paul\nI think we would all be mistaken if we made any bold predictions about what 's going to happen in Iowa and New Hampshire . It 's a particularly tumultuous primary season , and if you go back and look at 2012 , which was also pretty unpredictable , the people that were winning at this point ultimately did not win in Iowa . I think the ground game matters more than polling , and we 'll have to see what happens .\nThere 's two things going on . One is a clear sense of economic anxiety and the feeling amongst a lot of voters that the country 's headed in the wrong direction — combined with the sense that Washington does n't really give a damn .\nThe other thing that 's going on , which I think is more fundamental , and I think both Republicans and Democrats are struggling to understand this , is a transformational moment in politics . It 's more disintermediated ; the party bosses no longer get to decide who the choice is . And both the RNC [ Republican National Committee ] and the DNC [ Democratic National Committee ] , I think , are struggling with this new reality .\nWith social media , with the ability to raise money online , with the ability to drive your own message and organize your own get-out-the-vote machine without the party 's blessing , all sorts of candidates have become competitive . Donald Trump is definitely part of that , although he 's sort of the odd man out because he 's more of a cult of personality .\nHe 's definitely tapping into the anxiety that Washington is broken and that the economy is headed in the wrong direction . But the fundamental difference between the way I think about the tea party — and I 'm a card-carrying member of the tea party — is that we talked about the rule of law and we worried that President Obama was very much overstepping the powers of the presidency .\nWe wanted to see the power back in the hands of the people . And Donald Trump clearly does n't care about that stuff . He on a regular basis makes it very clear that as president he would do what 's necessary to get the job done .\nOn what Trump 's rise says about the two major political parties\nI think they 're sort of walking on eggshells right now , and it goes back to this question about disintermediation . The two-party system has very much been dependent on the ability of party bosses to control the message , to control the money , to control who the candidates are from the top down . And the party that best understands that that world is no longer there is best going to flourish in this new environment .\nI think in some ways Donald Trump is a creation of the Republican establishment 's unwillingness to accept this new world .\nWe wanted to see the power back in the hands of the people . And Donald Trump clearly does n't care about that stuff .\nOn whether Trump has been a beneficiary of the tea party 's rise\nI 've looked at the data of this , and it depends on how you define the tea party . I talk to tea partiers every day , and he definitely has support from some of them and ... some of his strongest opposition comes from the tea party .\nI think it gets to this question of executive power . But I also think that he 's drawing from a lot of Democrats , a lot of independents , a lot of people that have not been participating in the political process before .\nTo me , that 's part of the interesting part of this new world . You know , can we actually enfranchise more voters , can we engage more people in this process ?\nAnd I should say , we should mention that the same dynamic is happening on the Democratic side . Bernie Sanders is in large part tapping into some of those same anxieties . He has , oddly enough , some of the same positions as Donald Trump on key issues ... on foreign policy , on immigration . Bernie Sanders has a history of being opposed to new immigration . It 's sort of that closed-system view that our best days are behind us .\nAnd , of course , Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary fits in New Hampshire and Iowa .


Far from chastened by the debt debate , tea partyers and conservative groups signaled Thursday they ’ ve concluded they didn ’ t lose , but rather were sabotaged from within by weak Republicans — and they took the first steps to oust one of them .\nMississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel announced he would challenge U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran in the Republican primary next year , a day after the GOP ’ s senior senator voted to end the 16-day government shutdown and grant President Obama more borrowing authority .\nMr. McDaniel immediately saw a flood of support from the outside groups that had rallied against this week ’ s debt and spending agreement .\n“ Our country can ’ t afford any more bad votes that stem from old friends and back-room deals , ” said Daniel Horowitz , deputy political director of the Madison Project . “ And as witnessed from the recent budget battle against Obamacare , we can not win against Democrats if we don ’ t grow our conservative bench in the Senate . ”\nFor the past two weeks , the deep divisions within the GOP have been on very public display .\nSens . Ted Cruz of Texas , Mike Lee of Utah and their allies pushed to withhold all government spending unless Mr. Obama agreed to cancel Obamacare , while party leaders called that a losing strategy and tried to come up with alternatives .\nOn Thursday , the GOP accepted defeat , passing a bill that gives Mr. Obama a “ clean ” bill to reopen government through January , and to raise debt through at least February .\nA majority of Republicans supported the deal in the Senate , but the situation was reversed in the House , where Cruz allies refused to sign off on a series of plans put forward by GOP leaders to end the stalemate .\nAhead of the vote , each side blamed the other for squandering leverage .\nMr. Obama , Democratic leaders and even many top Republicans said they hoped the tea party side had learned some political and tactical lessons , particularly in fighting a fight that now appears to have been futile from the start .\nBut tea party lawmakers say they could have won if all Republicans had stuck together , and the lesson they draw is that they need to oust those who surrendered .\n“ I want my colleagues to imagine simply that Senate Republicans stood together and said : We support the House Republicans in standing with the American people , ” Mr. Cruz said Wednesday on the Senate floor prior to the bill ’ s passage . “ If that had happened , I believe this result would have been very different . ”\nMr. Cruz ’ s battle cry seemed to resonate Thursday across the country with a new generation of tea-party-style candidates who have announced bids to run against veteran GOP lawmakers in 2014 .\nIn South Carolina , Nancy Mace , the first female graduate of The Citadel , lampooned GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham for being the sole Republican in the state ’ s congressional delegation to support the debt deal .\nAnother Graham opponent , state Sen. Lee Bright , also blasted the deal : “ We didn ’ t get anything … We surrendered again . ”\nIn Tennessee , state Rep. Joe Carr accused Sen. Lamar Alexander of violating conservative principles by voting to raise the debt ceiling without any accompanying spending cuts .\nAnd in Louisville , Ky. , Matt Bevin , a wealthy businessman , running against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , praised Mr. Cruz as the new face of the conservative movement and blasted Mr. McConnell , who wrote the final debt deal with his Democratic counterpart , Majority Leader Harry Reid .\n“ This shutdown was completely avoidable if we had real leadership in Washington , ” Mr. Bevin said in a Web video . “ Instead , we have career politicians like Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid that make decisions based on what is political expediency for them , not on principles and not on what is in the best interest of the American people . ”\nFormer Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin , the party ’ s 2008 vice president candidate , also weighed in , urging her supporters via Facebook not to “ be discouraged by the shenanigans of D.C. ’ s permanent political class today . ”\n“ We ’ re going to shake things up in 2014 , ” Mrs. Palin said . “ Rest well tonight , for soon we must focus on important House and Senate races . Let ’ s start with Kentucky — which happens to be awfully close to South Carolina , Tennessee , and Mississippi — from sea to shining sea we will not give up . We ’ ve only just begun to fight . ”\nThe tea party , though , could face an uphill battle in the 2014 campaign season .\nA new Pew Research Center poll that found the popularity of the tea party — including within Republican ranks — has plummeted in recent months and even more so since 2010 when it helped the GOP take over the House .\nNow 49 percent of the public has an unfavorable view of the tea party , compared to 30 percent who hold a favorable view .\n“ The tea party ’ s favorability rating has fallen across most groups since June , but the decline has been particularly dramatic among moderate and liberal Republicans , ” the poll analysis says . “ In the current survey , just 27 percent of moderate and liberal Republicans have a favorable impression of the tea party , down from 46 percent in June . ”\nJim Manley , a Democratic strategist , said that the budget stalemate may have weakened the tea party within Congress , though it hasn ’ t been eliminated .\n“ What ’ s interesting is that more and more senators have had it with the antics of Sens . Cruz and Lee , ” Mr. Manley said . “ The ‘ just say no ’ crowd is down to only 18 in the Senate Republican caucus , a tremendous change from only a few months ago . ”


The event has become more carnival than conservative salon . | AP Photos CPAC muddle mirrors GOP mess\nIt ’ s not hard to make fun of CPAC . From the presence of Donald Trump to a meaningless straw poll to a cavalcade of fringe-dwelling book merchants , the event has become more carnival than conservative salon .\nWhat is more notable about this year ’ s rendition of the annual confab , which begins outside Washington on Thursday , is not the easy caricature but how thoroughly the Conservative Political Action Conference reflects the state of the Republican Party four months after yet another humbling presidential defeat . It is a muddle , but a muddle with meaning .\nEstablishment Republicans are angry that popular GOP governors Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell are being snubbed , but conservatives , seeing Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush invited , are moaning that a traditional movement event has been annexed by the country club crowd .\nFuture Republican bright lights will be in attendance , but so will yesterday ’ s news , most of it with headlines no one wants to read .\nA Republican gay group isn ’ t welcome yet neither are hard-liners on immigration .\nAnd another member of the Paul family is poised , to the frustration of organizers , to again win the presidential straw poll .\nFor decades , perhaps even for a century now , Republicans have grappled with their moderate-conservative divide . But as the CPAC jumble illustrates , the confusion surrounding the party is now more complex than the enduring center vs. right paradigm .\n“ We all need to be singing from same hymnal , ” cautions former Mississippi governor and Clinton-era Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour . “ When the other side has the megaphone of the White House , it makes it all the more important that your side sticks together on message and has more message discipline . We have to have moderate Republicans , conservative Republicans , neo-con Republicans , tea party people all saying , ‘ Here are the thing we agree on and that we should emphasize . ’ ”\nBut as CPAC gets under way , it ’ s the differences that are coming into stark relief . The gathering has long been seen as an early indicator about the state of conservatives and that ’ s no different today . But unfortunately for the right , it ’ s the GOP ’ s identity crisis that now ’ s being reflected by CPAC .\nAnd it ’ s a dark night of the soul that ’ s been building for years . Each of the three legs of Ronald Reagan ’ s venerated Republican stool has gone wobbly in the wake of consecutive White House defeats , as the party grapples with both a core constituency that ’ s increasingly at odds with public opinion and the legacy of its most recentpresident .\nThe pillars of the conservative era ushered in by Reagan — a muscular defense , traditional cultural values and devotion to free markets – are being questioned by leading Republicans , and what could take the place of the Gipper ’ s trinity is now being openly debated in a fashion more reminiscent of the famously fractious Democrats of yore .\nRepublican leaders are questioning the interventionist foreign policy that President George W. Bush and the party ’ s last two nominees paid obeisance to ; party elites are urging a more tolerant or even supportive stance on gay rights and would be just fine if abortion wasn ’ t discussed at all ; and while conservative thinkers muse about a harder line on Wall Street , many GOP governors are bowing to the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society and their contemporaries in Congress , having just raised taxes at the start of the year , still entertain the possibility of more revenue increases in exchange for a fiscal grand bargain .\n“ We have to , as a Republican Party , get bigger , not smaller , and we ’ re a party that ’ s becoming more regionalized and I think a smaller , less significant national party , ” said Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul , deadpanning : “ We ’ re a great red state party . ”\nThe way to compete in blue America , Paul said , is to embrace a more restrained foreign policy and take a federalist approach on values issues .\n“ If you want to get together a majority in California I think your only chance is to be more of a libertarian Republican , ” said Paul , who is considering a presidential bid in 2016 and believes the views of his father , former congressman and long-shot presidential hopeful Ron Paul , are being vindicated . “ So it ’ s funny that those who resisted the influence of libertarian Republicans from 2008 to 2012 – I think we ’ re smart to revisit that . When I talk to the national party I think they ’ re aware of that . ”\nBut while Paul seeks to remake the GOP in his image , other party leaders , such as Barbour , hope to downplay differences and believe consensus is the only way to be relevant in the Obama era . Open internal warfare , this view goes , merely offers aid and comfort to the opposition . In other words , Republicans can ’ t even agree on whether they should litigate their disagreements .


It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 11 , 2016\nThat tweet sent shock waves through the political world yesterday . Democrats understood it to mean that the next four weeks are going to be an ugly mud-wrestling contest the likes of which this country has never seen . They donned their hazmat suits and ventured into the mire . The Republicans , on the other hand , understood that Donald Trump had just declared war on their party .\nIn a flurry of tweets , he characterized House speaker Paul Ryan as `` weak and ineffective '' and claimed he provided `` zero support . '' He then accused Sen. John McCain of being foul-mouthed and begging for his support in the past . And he said the GOP was harder to deal with than his Democratic rival declaring , “ Disloyal R ’ s are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary . They come at you from all sides . They don ’ t know how to win — I will teach them ! ” Trump was n't just unshackled , he had staged a prison break and was running screaming through the streets as his many millions of fans cheered him on .\nAll this evidently came as a surprise to the GOP establishment , which apparently assumed it could abandon all pretense of supporting its own presidential nominee with no repercussions . Apparently leading Republicans still do n't understand what is happening to their party . They seem to be under the impression that their only problem is a strange interloper by the name of Donald Trump , and they could n't be more wrong . Their problem is that they have a large and powerful faction of voters who despise them as much as they despise the Democrats .\nWhen President Obama was elected , the Republican base of the party , demoralized and defeated after the mess of the Bush administration , the Great Recession and the euphoria of the Obama campaign , quickly gathered its wits and reformed itself into a new entity they called the Tea Party . At first it simply existed to oppose President Obama 's agenda , the health care reforms in particular . Backed by big special interests and right-wing media , they became a force to reckon with and in 2010 , with the economy still mired in recession and people still feeling desperate , they helped the Republicans win back a congressional majority , along the way unseating some long-term Republican incumbents like Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah and Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina , both taken down by primary challenges from the Tea Party right . They marched into Washington with a mandate to confront the establishment .\nThe new insurrectionists also wanted to blow some things up just to show they could , which led to government shutdowns and `` hostage taking '' and sequestration . It proved they had power to gum up the works but it did n't result in taking back the White House in 2012 , even with Rep. Paul Ryan , every Republican 's dreamboat , on the ticket . That defeat did n't change their strategy one bit . In fact they redoubled their efforts to turn Washington into a combat zone and whatever small amount of comity was left fell completely apart .\nIn 2010 and 2012 , Tea Party candidates repeatedly won primaries against GOP incumbents or more qualified politicians , often leading to bad results in the general election . They tended to nominate extremists and fringe characters like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Richard Mourdock in Indiana who could n't win . To some extent the Tea Party base did n't care whether the GOP won the seat or not . They were happy to flex their muscles against the establishment and put all officeholders on notice that if they did n't toe the line , they could be next .\nThen came the earthquake of 2014 , when the Tea Party and talk radio joined together to help an obscure college professor named Dave Brat take down a very powerful member of Congress . That was , of course , Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia , the House majority leader , who had been touted just a couple of years earlier as one of the conservative Republican `` young guns , '' the future of the party . Pundits and analysts insisted at the time that the reasons were all local in nature and had nothing to do with broader trends . They were wrong . Brat won because of one issue : immigration , which was stimulating the right in a way they had n't seen since the early days of the Obamacare town halls . The primary defeat of Cantor showed the GOP leadership they had targets on their backs too .\nA year later , fellow Young Gun Paul Ryan reluctantly took the speakership after John Boehner sacrificed himself in order to get a budget agreement that would hold through the election . Predictably , Ryan soon became an object of mistrust and disappointment . The base , you see , does n't understand how our government works , and truly believed that if they sent representatives to Congress they could successfully roll back every liberal achievement of the past 60 years . They 've been angry at the GOP for failing to do the impossible for quite some time .\nThis is the same base that today is supporting Donald Trump , the man who reportedly paid someone to listen to talk radio , read right-wing news sites and brief him on them regularly , going all the way back to 2011 . He sensed the potency of the racism Barack Obama evoked among that crowd , which was why he based his aborted 2012 run on birtherism . He understood before anyone else that these people were fundamentally xenophobic white nationalists who were looking for someone to articulate their rage about what they saw as the loss of their rightful social status at the hands of nonwhite non-Christians . He also shared their outrage at what they see as threats to American global dominance from immigrants , Muslim extremists and Asian economic competition . Trump understood the Republican base better than the Republican Party itself did back in 2011 and he understands them better today .\nJust as the congressional leadership has been caught between a rock and a hard place in the House and Senate these past few years , with the normal workings of our governmental system clashing with the angry base 's demand that they unilaterally disable the executive branch , they are caught now between the moderate Republicans and independents they need to keep their congressional majority and their angry base , who love Trump and will once more rebel if those they send to Washington fail to fulfill their wishes .\nThis then is just the latest iteration of a dynamic that 's been going on for years . Trump is simply the first opportunist to take it to the presidential level . That dynamic dictates that when he loses , leading figures of the GOP establishment will be blamed whether they stick with Trump or not , so they might as well do what they think is right . The question after all this time is whether they even remember what that is .


Conservatives have found their candidate for one of 2016 's most important Senate races : Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis .\nSoon after he launched his bid Wednesday , a trifecta of deep-pocketed Tea Party-aligned groups — the Senate Conservatives Fund , the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks — all signaled they would back the two-term congressman in his bid to succeed Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , who 's running for president .\nFlorida is an important state in 2016 for many reasons . It will not only be a crucial part of any White House campaign , but it will also be critical in the battle for control of the Senate . While Republicans won the majority in 2014 , two years later they will find themselves almost entirely on defense , defending 24 seats — several in blue-leaning states President Obama carried — compared to the just 10 Democrats are defending . Democrats need to flip just five seats to take back the Senate .\nSo with few GOP primaries where they can make a mark , the trio of conservatives groups quickly circled their wagons around DeSantis , who won a competitive GOP primary for a new seat in 2012 . The race sets up what could become the most important Tea Party versus establishment clash next year .\nIn less than three years in the House , DeSantis has staked out a conservative foothold . He was among the founders of the new House Freedom Caucus , created to try and nudge GOP leadership to the right . He 's a Harvard Law grad , who later served in the Navy JAG Corps , and he 's currently the only declared GOP candidate in the Florida Senate contest so far . Several top-tier candidates , who were expected to run , surprisingly passed .\nAn aide with the National Republican Senatorial Committee said it has met with DeSantis , `` respect his candidacy '' and will meet with anyone interested in running . Other Republicans who could enter the race include Lt. Gov . Carlos Lopez Cantera , fellow Reps. Jeff Miller and David Jolly and former state Attorney General Bill McCollum , who lost a 2010 gubernatorial primary .\nIf a split within the GOP does emerge , with conservatives firmly on DeSantis 's side , it could not only hurt Republicans ' chances of holding onto the seat they need for their Senate calculus , but it could harm the party 's presidential nominee , too .\nNational Democrats were eager to paint him as a `` Tea Party extremist , '' calling DeSantis `` wildly out of step with mainstream Floridians . '' They have endorsed moderate Rep. Patrick Murphy , D-Fla. , as their nominee , but he could still face a bitter primary of his own from the more progressive and bombastic Rep. Alan Grayson , D-Fla .\nConservative groups had been making the pitch to DeSantis , who played in the Little League World Series and captained the Yale baseball team , to jump in the race ever since Rubio made his White House bid official and announced he would n't run for reelection to the Senate .\nThese are the same groups that were instrumental in helping now-presidential candidates Sens . Ted Cruz , R-Texas , Rand Paul , R-Ky. , and even Rubio win their primaries . The groups also tried unsuccessfully to oust several incumbents last cycle in Mississippi and Kansas , and they could still take aim at Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , this cycle as well .\nBut with few open GOP primaries to play in , DeSantis will have their heavy support .


FILE - In this June 28 , 2019 , file photo , President Donald Trump , right , shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin , left , during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka , Japan . Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help Trump get reelected , The New York Times reported Thursday , Feb. 20 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh , File )\nFILE - In this June 28 , 2019 , file photo , President Donald Trump , right , shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin , left , during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka , Japan . Intelligence officials say Russia is interfering with the 2020 election to try to help Trump get reelected , The New York Times reported Thursday , Feb. 20 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh , File )\nWASHINGTON ( AP ) — Intelligence officials have warned lawmakers that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election campaign to help President Donald Trump get reelected , according to three officials familiar with the closed-door briefing .\nTrump pushed back Friday accusing Democrats of launching a disinformation campaign .\n“ Another misinformation campaign is being launched by Democrats in Congress saying that Russia prefers me to any of the Do Nothing Democrat candidates who still have been unable to , after two weeks , count their votes in Iowa . Hoax number 7 ! ” Trump tweeted .\nThe officials , who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence , said Thursday that the briefing last week focused on Russia ’ s efforts to influence the 2020 election and sow discord in the American electorate . The intelligence warning was first reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post .\nA senior administration official told The ███ that the news infuriated Trump , who complained that Democrats would use the information against him . Over the course of his presidency , Trump has dismissed the intelligence community ’ s assessment of Russia ’ s 2016 election interference as a conspiracy to undermine his victory . The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private meeting .\nA day after the Feb. 13 briefing to the House committee , Trump berated the then-director of national intelligence , Joseph Maguire , and he announced this week that Maguire would be replaced by Richard Grenell , a Trump loyalist .\nMoscow denied any meddling . Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday that the allegations are “ paranoid reports that , unfortunately , there will be more and more of as we get closer to the elections ( in the U.S. ) . Of course , they have nothing to do with the truth . ”\nHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted that , “ American voters should decide American elections — not Vladimir Putin. ” She added that all members of Congress “ should condemn the President ’ s reported efforts to dismiss threats to the integrity of our democracy & to politicize our intel community . ”\nRep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , the chairman of the House intelligence committee , tweeted : “ We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections . If reports are true and the President is interfering with that , he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling . Exactly as we warned he would do . ”\nU.S. intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in the 2016 election through social media campaigns and stealing and distributing emails from Democratic accounts . They say Russia was trying to boost Trump ’ s campaign and add chaos to the American political process . Special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russian interference was “ sweeping and systematic , ” but he did not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign .\nRepublican lawmakers who were in last week ’ s briefing by the DNI ’ s chief election official , Shelby Pierson , pushed back by noting that Trump has been tough on Russia , one of the officials said .\nWhile Trump has imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia , he also has spoken warmly of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and withdrawn troops from areas , like Syria , where Moscow could fill the vacuum . He delayed military aid last year to Ukraine , a Russian adversary — a decision that was at the core of his impeachment proceedings .\nThe Times said Trump was angry that the House briefing was made before Schiff , the panel ’ s chairman , who led the impeachment proceedings .\nTrump on Thursday formally appointed Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany , to replace Maguire as the new acting director of national intelligence . Maguire was required to step down soon under federal law governing acting appointments . The Times cited two administration officials as saying the timing , after the intelligence briefing , was coincidental .\nGrenell ’ s background is primarily in politics and media affairs . He lacks the extensive national security and military experience of Maguire , as well as previous holders of the position overseeing the nation ’ s 17 intelligence agencies .\nHis appointment does little to heal the president ’ s fraught relations with the intelligence community , which Trump has derided as part of a “ deep state ” of entrenched bureaucrats that seek to undermine his agenda . The administration has most notably feuded with the intelligence community over the Russian interference and the events surrounding Trump ’ s impeachment .\nPierson told NPR in an interview that aired last month that the Russians “ are already engaging in influence operations relative to candidates going into 2020 . But we do not have evidence at this time that our adversaries are directly looking at interfering with vote counts or the vote tallies . ”\nPierson , appointed in July 2019 by then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats , works with intelligence agencies like the CIA , the FBI , the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security to identify anyone seeking to interfere with U.S. elections .\nPierson told NPR that the U.S. doesn ’ t know exactly what the Russians are planning , but she said it ’ s not just a Russia problem .\n“ We ’ re still also concerned about China , Iran , non-state actors , hacktivists and frankly — certainly for DHS and FBI - even Americans that might be looking to undermine confidence in the elections . ”\nAt an open hearing this month , FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee that Russia was engaged in “ information warfare ” heading into the November election , but that law enforcement had not seen efforts to target America ’ s infrastructure . He said Russia is relying on a covert social media campaign to divide the American public .


President Obama ’ s admission Friday that he asked Vladimir Putin in September to halt Russia ’ s cyber attacks prompted a rebuke by Sen. Lindsey Graham , South Carolina Republican , who said the comment shows how “ weak ” the outgoing executive ’ s handling of the Kremlin has been .\nFielding questions about the hacking campaign during his last scheduled press conference as president , Mr. Obama on Friday said he personally appealed to Mr. Putin earlier this year and told him to stop the cyberattacks or face “ serious consequences . ”\nU.S. officials “ did not see further tampering of the election process ” afterwards , Mr. Obama added . According to Mr. Graham , however , Moscow was hardly deterred by Washington ’ s warning .\n“ Clearly Putin was not impressed by Obama threat in September to cut it out or face consequences , ” Mr. Graham tweeted on Friday in response to Mr. Obama ’ s remarks .\n“ There would be no strong Putin without a weak Obama , ” the senator said in a subsequent tweet . “ President-elect Trump won ’ t become the 3rd American president to misjudge Vladimir Putin , ” he wrote in another .\nA frequent critic of the Kremlin , Mr. Graham has repeatedly called on his congressional colleagues in recent weeks to investigate Russia ’ s purported use of computer hacks and email leaks to influence the outcome of this year ’ s White House race . Earlier this week those pleas took a personal turn when the former presidential hopeful accused Russian hackers of compromising his own recent White House campaign .\n“ Our campaign vendor that we use was hacked , ” Mr. Graham told CNN on Wednesday . “ We were told by the FBI in August that we were hacked in June . ”\nThe U.S. intelligence community announced in October that its investigators were confident that the Russian government ordered a hacking campaign waged against American targets in the run-up to last month ’ s election , including the Democratic National Committee and other organizations and individuals tied to the Democratic Party , and security researchers have since tied those hacking campaigns to similar efforts waged against victims including former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign manager , John Podesta .\n“ I do believe the Russians hacked into the DNC . I do believe they hacked into Podesta ’ s email account . They hacked into my campaign account , ” Mr. Graham told CNN this week .\nThat activity , according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , was “ intended to interfere with the U.S. election process . ”\n“ Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin , ” Mr. Obama said at Friday ’ s press conference . “ This happened at the highest levels of the Russian government . ”\nMr. Putin has denied the allegations . Nonetheless , the U.S. will retaliate at a “ time and place of our own choosing , ” Mr. Obama said Friday .


Four former U.S. defense secretaries issue a warning about China and a wake-up call to Americans on artificial intelligence .\nAs Secretaries of Defense , we anticipated and addressed threats to our nation , sought strategic opportunities , exercised authority , direction , and control over the U.S. military , and executed many other tasks in order to protect the American people and our way of life . During our combined service leading the Department of Defense , we navigated historical inflection points – the end of the Cold War and its aftermath , the War on Terror , and the reemergence of great power competition .\nNow , based on our collective experience , we believe the development and application of artificial intelligence and machine learning will dramatically affect every part of the Department of Defense , and will play as prominent a role in our country ’ s future as the many strategic shifts we witnessed while in office .\nThe digital revolution is changing our society at an unprecedented rate . Nearly 60 years passed between the construction of the first railroads in the United States and the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad . Smartphones were introduced just 20 years ago and have already changed how we manage our finances , connect with family members , and conduct our daily lives .\nAI will have just as significant an impact on our national defense , and likely in even less time . Its effects , however , will extend beyond the military to the rest of American society . AI has already changed health care , business practices , and law enforcement , and its impact will only increase .\nAs this AI-driven transformation occurs , we must keep our democratic values firmly in mind and at the center of any dialogue about AI . Developers embed their values into their products whether they mean to or not . Social media platforms make tradeoffs between free speech and protection from harassment . Smartphone companies choose whether or not to develop operating systems that block the activation of cameras and microphones without users ’ permission . Just as surely , AI developed by authoritarian governments and the companies they finance will reflect authoritarian values .\nHowever , if designed with American values , AI can empower individuals by freeing them from mundane tasks , by increasing access to information , and by helping optimize decisions , all while respecting individual liberties and fundamental human rights . We ’ ve seen examples of how other AI designs will empower governments , particularly authoritarian governments . Their AI designs value those in power more than their citizens , by amplifying sensors that monitor populations , valuing state access to data more than privacy , and creating automation that empowers central decision makers . Just as a highway system that centralizes major cities naturally increase the cities ’ importance , societies using a network architecture and series of AI models with embedded authoritarian values will begin to reflect those same values .\nAmericans must ensure we deliberately and carefully embed our values into the technology that is already shaping our world . To do so , we need to lead the world in AI research and development , provide commercial and public systems to the world that reflect democratic values , and lead the global conversation on AI standards in concert with our allies , especially regarding AI ’ s use in war .\nThe American people need to play an active role by contacting their representatives , participating in public forums , and shaping private sector decisions . The DoD must invest in research and development in fields with few incentives for private sector investment . It must also lead the world in establishing standards for the ethical and safe use of AI by ensuring AI does not increase the risk of escalation and behaves as its users intend during military operations .\nThe United States has allowed China to begin shaping the conversation about norms . The Defense Department this week issued ethics guidelines for artificial intelligence , but it ’ s only a start . If we do not correct this deficiency , we can not guarantee that the technology that shapes the world our children and grandchildren will live in will reinforce rather than threaten the freedoms we have enjoyed .\nThe government is already working to ensure the United States and our allies lead the world in the development and use of AI . Departments and agencies have launched critical AI initiatives . Congress is playing a prominent role by developing a broad array of legislative initiatives , including the creation of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence . We urge our fellow Americans in academia , industry , and from across the country to educate themselves about what ’ s at stake , and to work together to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with this emerging technology .\nOur country entered the First World War to help decide the great question of that time : Will humanity make a world safe for democracy ? We didn ’ t seek a world filled with democracies , or even led by democracies , just a world safe for democracies to exist . Today we ’ ve come far , but we must not lose sight of the threats our country and its leaders understood more than a century ago : that the world is not a safe place for nations committed to individual liberties and other fundamental human rights by default , that global stability is not the norm , and that regimes that value their own power over the freedom and rights of their people would persist . AI will play an important role in every American ’ s future . If we do not lead its development and ensure it reflects our values , authoritarian regimes will ensure it reflects theirs . This is not just an issue of technology , it is an issue of national security .


We are often told that law enforcement must have a way to get around strong encryption technologies in order to catch bad guys . Such a `` backdoor '' into security techniques would only be used when necessary and would be closely guarded so it would not fall into the wrong hands , the story goes .\nThe intelligence community does not yet have a known custom-built backdoor into encryption . But intelligence agencies do hold a trove of publicly unknown vulnerabilities , called `` zero days , '' they use to obtain hard-to-get data . One would hope that government agencies , especially those explicitly dedicated to security , could adequately protect these potent weapons .\nA recently released 2017 DOJ investigation into a breach of the CIA Center for Cyber Intelligence 's ( CCI ) `` Vault 7 '' hacking tools publicized in 2016 suggests that might be too big of an ask . Not only was the CCI found to be more interested in `` building up cyber tools than keeping them secure , '' the nation 's top spy agency routinely made rookie security mistakes that ultimately allowed personnel to leak the goods to Wikileaks .\nThe released portions of the report are frankly embarrassing . The CCI cyber arsenal was not appropriately compartmentalized , users routinely shared admin-level passwords without oversight , there seemed to be little controls over what content users could access , and data was stored and available to all users indefinitely . No wonder there was a breach .\nIt gets worse . Because the CIA servers lacked activity monitoring and audit capabilities , the agency did not even realize it was hacked until Wikileaks publicly announced it in March of 2017 . As the report notes , if the hack was the result of a hostile foreign government like , say , China , the CIA might still be in the dark about the hack . Might there be other unknown breaches that fit this bill ?\nThe report recommended several measures the CIA should take to shore up its internal defenses . Among the few that were not redacted : do a better job of protecting zero days and vetting personnel . Okay , so do n't make all of the same mistakes again : got it .\nWell , it looks like even this goal was too ambitious for the CIA . Intelligence gadfly Sen. Ron Wyden ( D–Ore . ) , who first publicized the report , wrote a letter Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe stating that `` the intelligence community is still lagging behind '' three years after the report was first published . He demanded public answers for outstanding security problems in the intelligence community , such as a lack of basic practices like multi-factor and email authentication protocols .\nWhat a snafu . It is absurd enough that the CIA of all places can not even implement basic password protection programs . But when intelligence hacking units can not even manage to protect its own hacking tools , our troubles multiply .\nThe CIA is unfortunately not uniquely incompetent among the intelligence community . The National Security Agency ( NSA ) found itself the victim of a similar zero day link in the 2016 Shadow Brokers dump . These are just two incidents that the public knows about . A culture of lax security practices invites attacks from all kinds of actors . We do n't know how many times such hacking tools may have been discovered by more secretive outfits .\nMany policy implications follow . There is a strong case to be made that intelligence agencies should not hoard zero-day vulnerabilities at all but should report them to the appropriate body for quick patching . This limits their toolkit , but it makes everyone safer overall . Of course , foreign and other hostile entities are unlikely to unilaterally disarm in this way .\nThe intelligence community supposedly has a process for vetting which zero days should be reported and which are appropriate to keep secret , called the Vulnerabilities Equities Process ( VEP ) . Agencies must describe a vulnerability to a board who decides whether it 's dangerous enough to need patching or useful enough for spying purposes .\nFor example , a vulnerability in some technology that is only used in China would probably be kept for operations . Theoretically , a vulnerability in some technology that is widely-used in the United States would be reported for fixing to keep Americans safe . As these incidents show , this does not always happen .\nThe VEP process is clearly insufficient , given these high-profile breaches . The very least the intelligence community can do is appropriately secure the bugs they 've got . Efforts like Wyden 's seek to impose more accountability on these practices .\nThere 's a more general lesson about government efforts to improve security and privacy as well .\nAs implied earlier , we should strongly resist government efforts to compromise encryption in the name of law enforcement or anything else . Some of the most technically savvy government bodies can not even secure the secret weapons they have not advertised . Can you imagine the attack vectors if they publicly attain some master encryption-breaking technique ?\nIt also demonstrates the weaknesses of many top-down proposals to promote privacy or security . Government plans often attempt to sketch out master checklists that must be followed perfectly on all levels to work well . They can be time-consuming and burdensome , which means that personnel often cut corners and shirk accountability . Then when disaster inevitably strikes , the conclusion is that `` people did n't stick to the plan hard enough , '' not that the plan was generally unrealistic to start .\nThere is n't a lot that the public can do about seemingly out-of-control intelligence agencies failing to secure potent cyberweapons beyond making a fuss . `` National security '' and all that . But it does give us a powerful argument against granting more power to these insecure intelligence bodies to break strong encryption . Governments ca n't even protect their secret cyber weapons . They almost certainly will not be able to protect a known backdoor into encryption .


Donald Trump grew testy during the final presidential debate Wednesday night when the topic turned to Russia ’ s alleged interference in the U.S. election . “ [ Hillary Clinton ] has no idea whether it ’ s Russia , China , or anybody else , ” Trump said , referring to a series of cyber-attacks that resulted in WikiLeaks releasing thousands of e-mails belonging to the Democratic National Convention and , more recently , Clinton campaign chair John Podesta . “ Our country has no idea. ” In fact , 17 different intelligence agencies have all concluded that Russia was behind the hacks , as Clinton pointed out . But the high-profile security breach was hardly a Mission Impossible–style operation . Instead , a new report suggests , Podesta unwittingly handed over his e-mail password when he fell for one of the oldest tricks in the hacker playbook .\nSecureWorks , a security firm looking into the hackings , told Motherboard that Podesta had fallen prey to a common phishing attack set up by a Russian hacking ring known as Fancy Bear . According to Motherboard , the group had sent several members of Clinton ’ s inner-circle e-mails in March with a custom Bitly link leading to a fake Gmail login page . Podesta had clicked on the link and entered his password , thus giving the hackers unfettered access to his account .\nFancy Bear , which is also known as APT28 and Sofacy , was also allegedly behind a similar attack on the D.N.C . last summer . Writing for Esquire , King ’ s College professor Thomas Rid explained how the group made its “ gravest mistake ” by forgetting to set the Bitly links to private , thus allowing investigators to see whom else the group had targeted . “ Among the group ’ s recent breaches were the German parliament , the Italian military , the Saudi foreign ministry , the e-mail accounts of Philip Breedlove , Colin Powell , and John Podesta—Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign chairman—and , of course , the DNC , ” he wrote .\nIt is widely believed that the Russian government is sponsoring the attacks , and disseminating the information to Clinton ’ s foes , including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange . “ There is no longer any doubt that Putin is trying to help Donald Trump by weaponizing WikiLeaks , ” a Clinton spokesman said in a statement Thursday .\nThe threat of Russian espionage has become one of the key issues in the 2016 election—not just because it reveals critical weaknesses in America ’ s cyber-security , but also because it highlights how Russia has sought to tilt the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump . And John Podesta , for one , is not making matters easier . One hopes that the next time the 67-year-old former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama receives an e-mail with a funny-looking link , he thinks twice before clicking .


But the Pentagon report describes something far more sophisticated : a China that has now leapt into the first ranks of offensive cybertechnologies . It is investing in electronic warfare capabilities in an effort to blind American satellites and other space assets , and hopes to use electronic and traditional weapons systems to gradually push the United States military presence into the mid-Pacific nearly 2,000 miles from China ’ s coast .\nThe report argues that China ’ s first aircraft carrier , the Liaoning , commissioned last September , is the first of several carriers the country plans to deploy over the next 15 years . It said the carrier would not reach “ operational effectiveness ” for three or four years , but is already set to operate in the East and South China Seas , the site of China ’ s territorial disputes with several neighbors , including Japan , Indonesia , the Philippines and Vietnam . The report notes a new carrier base under construction in Yuchi .\nThe report also detailed China ’ s progress in developing its stealth aircraft , first tested in January 2011 .\nThree months ago the Obama administration would not officially confirm reports in The New York Times , based in large part on a detailed study by the computer security firm Mandiant , that identified P.L.A . Unit 61398 near Shanghai as the likely source of many of the biggest thefts of data from American companies and some government institutions .\nUntil Monday , the strongest critique of China had come from Thomas E. Donilon , the president ’ s national security adviser , who said in a speech at the Asia Society in March that American companies were increasingly concerned about “ cyberintrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale , ” and that “ the international community can not tolerate such activity from any country. ” He stopped short of blaming the Chinese government for the espionage .\nBut government officials said the overall issue of cyberintrusions would move to the center of the United States-China relationship , and it was raised on recent trips to Beijing by Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Gen. Martin E. Dempsey .\nTo bolster its case , the report argues that cyberweapons have become integral to Chinese military strategy . It cites two major public works of military doctrine , “ Science of Strategy ” and “ Science of Campaigns , ” saying they identify “ information warfare ( I.W . ) as integral to achieving information superiority and an effective means for countering a stronger foe. ” But it notes that neither document “ identifies the specific criteria for employing a computer network attack against an adversary , ” though they “ advocate developing capabilities to compete in this medium . ”


What Barack Obama will see , when on Friday he becomes the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima , is a large esplanade lined with trees , with a cenotaph monument to the victims of the A-bomb , with the words : “ the error of the past will not be repeated ” . In the memorial park , he will see the gutted , skeletal , dome-shaped building that was once an exhibition hall ; it has been preserved as the only structure left standing in the area where the Enola Gay dropped its charge at 8:15am , on 6 August 1945 . He will also visit a museum exhibiting pictures of the city before and after the blast , as well as descriptions of what its inhabitants suffered in the inferno .\nMr Obama will not offer an apology for the decision taken by his wartime predecessor , Harry Truman – that would mean breaking a decades-old taboo among successive US administrations , and the White House has made clear Mr Obama would avoid such a move . But he will no doubt find the words to make the call that has been a hallmark of his presidency : the call to work towards a “ world without nuclear weapons ” . Mr Obama first pronounced those words in a 2009 speech in Prague , and they helped him secure the Nobel peace prize later that same year . But seven years on , the message – and the dream – has run up against a wall of geopolitical realities .\nThe Japanese have long awaited a US presidential acknowledgement of the horrors unleashed on Hiroshima 71 years ago and then , three days later , Nagasaki . Some may take Mr Obama ’ s visit as vindicating pacifist views , but the strategic context in Asia is not supportive of these . American nuclear deterrence is something many US allies in the region want to see consolidated , not dismantled or diminished . As he burnishes his legacy with this symbolic gesture , the president knows he needs to tread carefully , in an Asia in which China ’ s rise has caused disruptive , and sometimes alarming shifts , in the balance of power . At the heart of this visit is a striking paradox : nuclear weapons are terrifying , but , amid bitter regional standoffs , the nuclear umbrella is as much in demand as ever . And while Japan continues to officially campaign – as Mr Obama has done – for the global elimination of atomic weapons , both it and South Korea actually want to see American defence assurances reiterated , if not strengthened .\nAs well as China ’ s new military assertiveness , US allies in Asia have the unpredictability of North Korea to reckon with . China and Japan have been embroiled in a long-running dispute over ownership of the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea . China has put nerves on edge among its neighbours by building and militarising artificial islands in the South China Sea , and by claiming swaths of water . Earlier this year , North Korea carried out its fourth nuclear test and it has pushed ahead with ballistic missile development in defiance of international sanctions .\nSo while Mr Obama will use his visit to Hiroshima to revisit his anti-nuclear ideals , the substantive US-Japanese dialogue will be concerned with nuclear deterrence in the face of China ’ s military build-up . The US commitment to nuclear military power will not have been reduced in any way under the Obama presidency : this year , his administration released budget proposals which include plans to spend an estimated $ 1tn over 30 years on modernising the nuclear arsenal . Those who hoped for substantive gestures towards disarmament will be left just as disappointed as those who had hoped that a 2010 US-Russia agreement on limiting the number of deployed nuclear warheads would be followed by further efforts . Mr Obama ’ s abolitionist message strikes , at best , a discordant note with current policies , and at worst may sound like outright hypocrisy .\nGeopolitical constraints have caught up with Mr Obama . The behaviour of China , North Korea and also Russia , which has indulged in nuclear sabre-rattling across Europe since the Ukraine war , have led some experts to describe a new era of nuclear deterrence , 25 years after the end of the cold war . These are certainly not developments the president wished for , but they are the circumstances that fate has dealt him .\nMore than 200,000 people were killed by the A-bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 . The devastating power of atomic warfare opened up an era where humanity ’ s very survival was suddenly at stake . The world continues to live in the shadow of the bomb , and looks set to do so after the age of Mr Obama , too . It can only be a good thing that , for the first time , a sitting American president will pay respect to Hiroshima ’ s victims . Mr Obama likes symbols and is good at speeches . But the visit also lays bare the daunting gap between a laudable , idealistic vision , and the hard realities and choices that presidents must so often confront .


Iran has declared that it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal .\nIn a statement , it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment , the level of enrichment , the stock of enriched material , or research and development .\nThe announcement followed a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran .\nTensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in Baghdad .\nReports from Baghdad say the US embassy compound there was targeted in an attack on Sunday evening . A source told the BBC that four rounds of `` indirect fire `` had been launched in the direction of the embassy . There were no reports of casualties .\nHundreds of thousands turned out in Iran on Sunday to give Soleimani a hero 's welcome ahead of his funeral on Tuesday .\nEarlier , Iraqi MPs had passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the general 's killing in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Friday .\nAbout 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State ( IS ) group . The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday 's vote .\nPresident Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened that the US will strike back at Iran in the event of retaliation for Soleimani 's death , and said it could do so `` perhaps in a disproportionate manner '' .\nThe 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran , on life support ever since the Trump administration abandoned it in May 2018 , may now be in its final death throes .\nDonald Trump , throughout his presidential campaign and then as president , has never failed to rail against what he calls his predecessor President Barack Obama 's `` bad deal '' . But all its other signatories - the UK , France , Russia , China , Germany and the EU - believe that it still has merit .\nThe agreement , known as the JCPOA , constrained Iran 's nuclear programme for a set period in a largely verifiable way . But its greatest significance - even more so given the current crisis - is that it helped to avert an imminent war . Before it was signed , there was mounting concern about Tehran 's nuclear activities and every chance that Israel ( or possibly Israel and the US in tandem ) might attack Iran 's nuclear facilities .\nSince the US withdrawal , Iran has successively breached key constraints of the JCPOA . Now it appears to be throwing these constraints out altogether . What matters now is what precisely it decides to do . Will it up its level of uranium enrichment , for example , to 20 % ? This would reduce significantly the time it would take Tehran to obtain suitable material for a bomb . Will it continue to abide by enhanced international inspection measures ?\nWe are now at the destination the Trump administration clearly hoped for in May 2018 . But the major powers , while deeply unhappy about Iran 's breaches of the deal , are also shocked at the controversial decision by Mr Trump to kill the head of Iran 's Quds Force , a decision that has again brought the US and Iran to the brink of war .\nUnder the 2015 accord , Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions .\nUS President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018 , saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles .\nIran refused , and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement . It had been expected to announce its latest stance on the agreement this weekend , before news of Soleimani 's death .\nIranian state media announced on Sunday that the country will no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal .\n`` Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs , '' a statement said .\nHowever , the statement did not say that Iran was actually withdrawing from the agreement and it added that the country would continue to co-operate with the UN 's nuclear watchdog , the IAEA .\nIran , it said , was ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement . Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its income under US sanctions .\nThe country has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful - but suspicions that it was being used to develop a bomb covertly prompted the UN Security Council , US and EU to impose crippling sanctions in 2010 .\nThe 2015 deal was designed to constrain the programme in a verifiable way in return for sanctions relief .\nIt restricted Iran 's enrichment of uranium , which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons , to 3.67 % . Iran was also required to redesign a heavy-water reactor being built , whose spent fuel would contain plutonium suitable for a bomb , and allow international inspections .\nBefore July 2015 , Iran had a large stockpile of enriched uranium and almost 20,000 centrifuges , enough to create eight to 10 bombs , according to the White House at the time .\nUS experts estimated back then that if Iran had decided to rush to make a bomb , it would take two to three months until it had enough 90 % -enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon - the so-called `` breakout time '' .\nIran 's current `` breakout time '' , should it attempt to build a nuclear bomb , is estimated to be around a year , but this could be reduced to half a year or even a matter of months if enrichment levels are increased to 20 % , for example .\nThe other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK , France , Germany , China and Russia - tried to keep the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018 .\nLate on Sunday , German Chancellor Angela Merkel , French President Emmanuel Macron and British PM Boris Johnson released a joint statement urging Iran to drop measures that go against the deal .\n`` We are ready to continue talks with all parties in order to contribute to de-escalating tensions and re-establishing stability in the region , '' they said .\nEarlier on Sunday Mr Johnson said `` we will not lament '' the death of Soleimani , describing him as `` a threat to all our interests '' .\nEU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran 's Foreign Minister , Mohammad Javad Zarif , to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani assassination .


TOBA , Japan -- There is the soaring rhetoric . And then there 's the messy reality .\nWhen President Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe make an historic visit to Hiroshima on Friday -- the first time a sitting U.S. president has visited the site of the first atomic bomb attack -- their words advocating nuclear disarmament will clash with real-world security necessities .\nFar from backing up the vision of a world without nuclear bombs that Obama laid out in a 2009 speech that helped secure a Nobel Peace Prize , his near-finished presidency has seen a multibillion-dollar modernization of the U.S. nuclear force .\nWatching from the audience will be at least three Japanese survivors of the U.S. nuclear attacks , according to the Kyodo news agency .\nJapan 's long postwar commitment to disarmament , meanwhile , is only possible because of its reliance on the so-called American `` nuclear umbrella '' that protects it from antagonistic North Korea and China . Tokyo , should it choose , could probably easily convert its advanced civilian nuclear program into a weapons program , and some conservatives in Abe 's ruling party have argued that the country 's pacifist constitution technically allows nuclear weapons .\nDespite his own mixed record on nukes , Obama likely sees his Hiroshima visit as a worthwhile expenditure of political capital in order to shore up a global nonproliferation effort that seems at times to be crumbling .\nBefore the most recent of a series of nuclear security summits meant to reduce and protect nuclear material , Obama wrote in March that eliminating all nuclear weapons may not happen in his lifetime . `` But we have begun . As the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons , the United States has a moral obligation to continue to lead the way in eliminating them . Still , no one nation can realize this vision alone . It must be the work of the world . ''\nObama 's vision of a world without nuclear weapons was challenged almost immediately .\nHis April 2009 speech in Prague happened within hours of North Korea 's launch of a long-range rocket that outsiders , including the United Nations , called a cover for a test of banned missile technology . Pyongyang is still barreling ahead in its push for nuclear-armed missiles that could reach the U.S. mainland .\nObama secured a deal meant to limit Iran 's nuclear program , if it can be implemented amid mistrust on both sides . But Pakistan and India are still locked in a nuclear standoff . The United States and Russia , which have most of the world 's nuclear weapons , often see their geopolitical jockeying for position interfere with disarmament efforts . And there are growing worries about the security of nuclear fuel sites around the world .\nObama 's trip to Hiroshima also comes amid anxiety that North Korea 's growing nuclear and missile capabilities could lead to the top U.S. allies in Asia , Japan and South Korea , starting their own nuclear weapons programs .\nIt is highly unlikely either country will go nuclear . It could cause huge political and economic damage - crippling sanctions , global condemnation - and jeopardize their alliances with the United States .\nBut a small group in South Korea , including some conservative members of the ruling party , and some in Japan see the North Korean danger as too grave to rely only on the protection of another country . They also question whether , despite rhetoric from U.S. officials about an `` ironclad '' alliance , Washington would really use nuclear weapons and risk the lives of thousands of American troops should a belligerent North Korea attack .\nThe Chosun Ilbo , South Korea 's top newspaper by circulation , said in an editorial weeks after North Korea 's nuclear test in January that discussions in Seoul on acquiring nuclear weapons were inevitable .\nJudging by the level of American involvement in crises in Ukraine and Syria , for example , the newspaper said any U.S. help would come only after Seoul is turned into a `` pile of ashes '' by a North Korean nuclear attack .\nThis fear has been highlighted by Donald Trump , the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican party in the United States . He has questioned the amount of money the U.S. military is forced to spend to protect its allies , and has suggested that Japan and South Korea should be allowed to develop their own nuclear weapons .\nJapan prides itself on its pacifism and disarmament , but it is only through U.S. nuclear deterrence that the country can live alongside nuclear-armed North Korea , China and Russia , without going nuclear itself .\n`` Some say this is hypocritical , '' said Ralph Cossa , president of the Pacific Forum CSIS think tank , `` but I think it is just common sense and good national security policy . The Japanese would certainly be happier if no one had nuclear weapons , but as long as several of its neighbors have them , they welcome being under America 's nuclear umbrella . ''\nYukio Okamoto , a former Japanese diplomat , said Tokyo `` is in the most difficult position '' because it is a nuclear bomb victim , surrounded by potentially hostile nuclear-armed states and dependent for its survival on U.S. nuclear deterrence .\n`` We have to walk through a very narrow passage of trying our sincere efforts toward total elimination in the long term , but at the same time trying to preserve the alliance with the United States and not to tarnish the security relationship , especially the nuclear deterrence , '' Okamoto said .\nObama finds himself divided between his anti-nuclear vision and the realities of leading a global power .\nWorries about Japan and South Korea producing nuclear weapons mean the United States must offer them nuclear protection , thereby `` going against Obama 's own call for global denuclearization , '' Charles Armstrong , an Asia expert at Columbia University , said . `` At the same time , the U.S. is modernizing its own nuclear arsenal . Thus , U.S. actions and goals are not entirely consistent . ''\nObama 's trip to Hiroshima will be filled with images of the horrors of nuclear war , and lofty statements about the need to eliminate those weapons . But some argue that for the visit to be successful , it must highlight Asia 's real nuclear dangers .\nMichael Auslin , an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington , told The Japan Times : `` Asia is concerned about how Washington will deal with a more assertive China and a nuclear North Korea , not with an unrealistic aspiration to rid the world of nuclear weapons . ''\nObama may not be able to escape criticism from all sides .\nMany conservatives in the United States believe a Hiroshima visit will be a failure because it will be seen as an apology . Nonproliferation activists believe he has not gone far enough in efforts to `` earn '' his Nobel Prize .\n`` I did think Obama was serious about his nuclear-free world , but that was six or seven years ago . We are no closer today than we were when he took office to achieving that end , '' said Bruce Cumings , an Asia expert at the University of Chicago . `` I 'm sure he will bring up getting rid of nukes in his speech , but he 's in a much weaker position today , because of the ongoing upgrading of American nuclear weapons . ''


GUAM — On Saturday , the customer rush was on at Guam 's Home Depot .\nThe line had already snaked into the paint department by the time general manager Bobby Salcido opened an additional register . People shuffled over , carting batteries , flashlights and bottled water .\nAlthough , as it turns out , Yigo resident Darrell Gose really just needed a new flashlight . And Yigo resident Jesse Cruz , 39 , was restocking bottled water for everyday use around the house .\nIn fact , despite slightly lighter foot traffic during the week , it was `` a regular , everyday Saturday , '' Salcido said .\nIt was n't quite what most people would expect , considering the week Guam has had .\nSince the escalation of threats between the United States and North Korea , the island has been in the international spotlight .\nNorth Korea said it had a plan to launch missiles toward Guam in response to what it considers aggressive rhetoric from the United States .\nMeanwhile , President Trump tweeted Friday that military solutions were `` locked and loaded . ''\nOn Saturday morning , Guam Gov . Eddie Calvo received calls of assurance from Trump and White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly .\nIn a subsequent video message , Calvo said that although this is not the first time Guam has been threatened , `` knowing we have a president and a White House that is watching out for us , gives me great comfort . ''\nThe island 's leaders may have been comforted , but alarm on social media has quickly boosted # Guam in the media .\nAmid the concerned Twitterverse , officials advising residents what to do in case of a missile attack and media hand-wringing over what might be said or tweeted next — island residents remained calm .\nGuam residents went fishing . The University of Guam Kid 's Fishing Derby culminated its two-week program with a strong turnout of about 40 registered children , their families , and a handful of unregistered participants who just wanted to join in the fun at Asan Beach Park .\nResidents also went spear fishing , hauling in impressive catches . They went to football practice , to beaches and malls , where parking lots were predictably packed on the sunny weekend .\nAnd some went shopping — but not for what you might expect .\nHome Depot loss prevention manager Andrew Guilliot noticed a few customers stocking up on bottled water , batteries and portable fans — in other words , `` typical things you would see people buy when they 're prepping for typhoons . ''\n`` I do n't know if that has to do with recent developments , or if people are just shopping , '' Guilliot added . `` Nothing beyond basic disaster prep , as far as we 've seen in stores . ''\n`` Typically you 'd expect to see water , generators , batteries , tarps and plastic go out , '' he said , `` but we 're pretty well stocked and I have n't seen any spikes in those categories as of yet . ''\nSo far , then , Guam residents are n't flooding the aisles so much as trickling into them . That goes for the airplane aisles as well . Despite urging from well-meaning friends and relatives off-island , peopel are staying put . A check of online booking services showed seats are still available on departing flights this week .\nTrump : North Korea leader Kim Jong Un 'will regret it fast ' if he threatens U.S. or allies\nWhat war ? U.S. military not mobilizing despite North Korea threats\nNorth Korea threatens missile strike on Guam ; Trump vows 'fire and fury '\nSome residents do have disaster prepping on the brain . Ordot resident David Lessard , 55 , went to Cost-U-Less on Saturday interested in `` looking into '' the idea .\n`` I 've been reading articles a lot lately , and I 'm kind of concerned that people are making threats and North Korea 's got to save face . So either they 're making these threats and they 've got to back them up , or they 're going to have to turn around and not back them up . Either way , they 're going to lose face , '' Lessard said .\nLessard lived through the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines in 1991 , and he said he 's been through a lot of other catastrophic events . He said , `` this is probably just another one of those speed bumps in the road . ''\n`` I 've got a lot of friends calling from the states and Philippines and Japan . They 're all saying 'Dave , you better stock up , we 're real worried about you and all our prayers are with you , ' '' Lessard said . `` So we 're looking into getting some canned goods , bottled water . But it 's not a real bad feeling about it . ''\nMalojloj resident Roger Hostetler , 62 , is concerned that the leaders of North Korea and the United States are both `` kind of unstable , and the remarks that they 're making to each other may escalate the situation . ''\n`` We 're on an island . Where are we going to go ? What are we going to do ? If they hit us , I 'd rather be the first to go than one to linger , and all hell 's going to break out if they do fire a missile , I can guarantee you that , '' Hostetler said .\nHostetler , a retired Navy civil service worker , has faith in the THAAD anti-missile system and the combined Japan-U.S. military forces .\n`` I just hope China and Russia do n't get involved on the other side , '' he said .\nFor many Guam residents , however , the explosive threats are just more of the same .\nDededo resident Vicente Bautista , 62 , said he heard similar threats in 1977 when he was an Army infantryman stationed near the Demilitarized Zone .\n`` They always had a missile aiming to Guam ever since , '' Bautista said .\nHe believes that North Korea wants to show off , but does n't have the technology to back up the threats . He 's not prepping , either .\n`` I do n't believe that he 's going to fight the whole world . I doubt they 're going to start something to fire the missile here to Guam , '' Bautista said . `` I do n't think it 's ever going to happen . ''\nDededo resident Mike Soderquist , 44 , is n't intimidated either . Having lived in South Korea for about four years , Soderquist said , this is nothing new .\n`` We get that kind of rhetoric all the time from North Korea . For me , it 's just a bunch of rah-rah-rah , '' he said .\nThe island seems , in general , to agree with the first line of a simple statement issued on Friday by the Guam Chamber of Commerce : `` It is business as usual on Guam . ''\nAt the very least , it was for Soderquist , who was out shopping Saturday .\n`` I 'm just doing some regular shopping , '' Soderquist said . `` I 'm actually going to a barbecue later . ''


All signs may point to a successful and historic summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un , but the stakes are so high that the U.S. national security community is braced for the possibility of a rapid spiral toward nuclear brinkmanship if the talks between the two men turn sour .\nWith the North Korean side notorious for bizarre antics and sudden walkouts from diplomatic meetings , it remains anyone ’ s guess how Tuesday ’ s face-to-face will ultimately play out — even as most analysts agree that Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim are both driven by domestic political motives to make it appear as a major success .\n“ It ’ s very hard for me to imagine this summit not succeeding , ” said Robert L. Gallucci , a former chief U.S. negotiator with the North Koreans , although he acknowledged that a sudden meltdown in Singapore could trigger a quick reversal to the threat-soaked posturing between Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim just a year ago .\n“ The president of the United States might hop on his airplane and come home pretty unhappy , ” Mr. Gallucci , now a professor at Georgetown University , said Friday at a discussion hosted by the Center for a New American Security in Washington . “ We would be in a situation in which we were once again talking preventive strikes and the South Koreans would be caught in the middle . ”\nOthers have put it more bluntly . Victor Cha , also a former U.S. negotiator and now adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , has said “ the danger of a failed summit is that it could actually take us a step closer to armed conflict , because there is no diplomacy left after a [ failed ] summit . ”\nMr. Cha made the comment in April to the House Foreign Affairs Committee , arguing that “ a preventative unilateral attack by the United States on North Korea ” would need congressional approval and take into “ sober account ” the possibility of counterstrikes targeting the 350,000 U.S. military personnel and other Americans living in Japan and South Korea .\nWhile Mr. Trump has upped hopes for success — tweeting just before arrival in Singapore of “ a feeling that this one-time opportunity will not be wasted ! ” — his optimism comes against a backdrop in which the summit nearly fell apart just a few weeks ago .\nMr. Trump canceled the summit in late May after North Korea suddenly hurled invective at Washington — and specifically National Security Adviser John R. Bolton — for suggesting that Pyongyang ’ s complete denuclearization must happen quickly along a “ Libya model . ”\nWith South Korea scrambling to mediate , the two sides worked through the hiccup and got the summit back on track . But the danger of a potential collapse felt all the more real when a Pentagon spokesperson told reporters in late May that the U.S. military was “ ready to fight tonight ” should North Korea launch strikes against American interests or allies .\nThe comment was reminiscent of the height of brinkmanship in August , when fears of an armed clash soared amid Mr. Trump ’ s warning that North Korea could face “ fire and fury like the world has never seen. ” He made the threat after reports that Pyongyang had succeeded in building a nuclear bomb small enough to fit inside an intercontinental ballistic missile .\nThe nuclear-tipped ICBM fear rose after an increase in missile and nuclear tests that Pyongyang conducted in 2016 and 2017 , actions that were accompanied by state media threats toward Washington .\nMr. Bolton , who has since become the president ’ s national security adviser , made headlines as a private analyst at the time by advocating for pre-emptive strikes that could target North Korean missile facilities .\nWhile most analysts say the Singapore summit is likely go smoothly , many are skeptical that measurable progress will be made on the issue of denuclearization .\nThe Trump administration has said that in order for North Korea to get sanctions relief , Mr. Kim will have to abandon his nuclear program through “ complete , verifiable and irreversible dismantlement , ” or CVID .\nPyongyang so far has said only that it is willing to pursue a denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula , and there are signs that the North ’ s definition of denuclearization differs from what Washington demands .\nIn Mr. Kim ’ s view , the notion is tied to a drawdown in nuclear capabilities across the region , including in China and Russia , said Tara O , an Asia specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies .\n“ It ’ s not the same as the denuclearization of North Korea , ” Ms. O said during the Center for a New American Security discussion on Friday .\nPatrick Cronin , who heads the center ’ s Asia-Pacific security program , added that “ President Trump [ will be ] trying to really look into the eyes of Kim Jong-un and say , ‘ Are you serious about [ nuclear ] dismantlement ? Because if you are , I ’ m serious about letting you build your economy. ’ “\nIf that basic level of agreement is achieved , said Mr. Cronin , there will still be major uncertainties . “ Presumably , ” he said , “ Trump and Kim are looking to see whether there is the will on both sides to begin a process that could lead to a road map that could start to be very specific in the months ahead . ”\nMr. Gallucci , meanwhile , also raised questions about denuclearization , arguing that the whole concept of CVID , while “ politically correct , ” is “ physically nonsense . ”\nThe amount of fissile nuclear material needed for a bomb may be about the “ size of a baseball , ” he said . “ So if you think they can ’ t find a place to hide five baseballs in North Korea , there ’ s something wrong here . ”\nMr. Gallucci added that better words for Mr. Trump to push are “ transparency , monitoring [ and ] verification . ”\nBut one former CIA official focused on North Korea said it ’ s hard to fathom that the North Korean leader is serious about abandoning a nuclear program that his father and grandfather worked for decades to build .\n“ Nuclear weapons are a part of North Korea ’ s national identity , ” said Jung H. Pak , who held senior U.S. intelligence positions prior to becoming a private analyst with the Brookings Institution . “ It is the guarantor of North Korea ’ s status , and it ’ s the guarantor of Kim .\n“ Unless we see a difference in the way , or any attempt at shaking down that ideological infrastructure of North Korea ’ s nuclear identity , ” Ms. Pak said at the Center for a New American Security discussion . “ I don ’ t see denuclearization as something that is a realistic goal . ”


Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said recently it would be `` game on '' if North Korea were to fire a missile at the United States or its allies , but how fast things would happen is not so clear .\nA leading expert in missile defense told Fox News there would not be much time to decide to shoot down a North Korean missile .\n“ This is a game of minutes , but the initial detection of a launch would be really in terms of seconds , ” said Thomas Karako , senior fellow and director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies .\n“ Keep in mind the entire flight time from North Korea to the United States is well under any hour [ and ] the authority is given in advance . It 's predesignated , ” he added .\nThere are reports that President Trump has already authorized his national security team to act if a North Korean missile is headed toward Guam , Hawaii or the U.S. homeland .\nWhen any missile is launched around the world , it produces a plume and heat signature that is quickly picked up by U.S. military spy satellites . Almost immediately the information is transferred to the North American Aerospace Defense Command , better known as NORAD , as well as the U.S. Strategic Command , which controls the military ’ s nuclear forces .\nKarako says both NORAD and U.S. Strategic Command quickly assess where the missile is going and decide whether it is a threat to the United States , its allies or any U.S. military forces in the region .\nU.S. missile defense has come a long way since its inception 13 years ago . By the end of this year , 44 ground-based interceptor missiles will be housed in silos between two U.S. Air Force bases in Alaska and California .\nThe last two tests of the ground based interceptors have been successful despite a spotty track record previously .\n“ I 'm very confident…that this system can and will defend the homeland if attacked , ” said the former head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency , Vice Adm. James D. Syring .\nBut even this new technology needs improving . Today ’ s “ kill vehicle ” from the interceptor missiles dates back to the 1990s , according to Karako .\nTo protect South Korea and the U.S. territory of Guam , the U.S. military has deployed the THAAD anti-ballistic missile system .\nRight now THAAD ( Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ) is only operated by the United States military , but there are only a few systems available to deploy .\n“ The United States has only about five or six [ THAAD ] batteries for the world , ” said Karako .\nThe United Arab Emirates has two THAAD batteries and the Saudis have announced they will be purchasing seven batteries , Karako said .\nTHAAD is a perfect 15 for 15 over its lifetime in controlled tests to destroy short or medium range ballistic missiles , including two recent tests from Kodiak , Alaska which shot down ballistic missiles over the Pacific .\nTHAAD missiles intercept ballistic missiles when they re-enter the Earth ’ s atmosphere .\nBut Karako says the THAAD battery currently deployed to South Korea is only “ finite . ”\nTHAAD will not protect the 25 million people living in and around Seoul , but it will buy the military time to strike back , according to Karako .\n“ North Korea has hundreds of missiles , the THAAD battery is not there to defend the entire peninsula , ” said Karako . “ This is not about having a perfect shield and sitting there and playing catch . ”\nThis week , the U.S. Army added four more launchers - over the objections of Russia and China - to join the two already in place bringing the total now to 48 missiles to defend South Korea .\nSitting off shore are Aegis destroyers that are designed to shoot down ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere in space .\nProtecting Japan are Patriot missile batteries to provide a last ditch protection should any missiles get through the Aegis warships deployed at sea .\nThe aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was put to sea this morning from Tokyo Bay for preplanned training exercises at sea , according to the U.S. Navy .\nSeparately , a ballistic missile defense warship will always be on alert near Japan . Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will join the president and the rest of the cabinet along with their families at Camp David this weekend .\nAnd on Friday , a US Navy official confirmed that four warships had joined the USS Ronald Reagan at sea for a `` routine patrol , '' just a month after the aircraft carrier 's month-long maintenance period in Japan . The official says that two of the four warships are ballistic missile defense ships capable of shooting down North Korean missiles .\nThe four warships carry more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles among them .\nAhead of a meeting with Kuwaiti Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sheikh Mohammed Al-Khaled Al-Hamad Al-Sabah at the Pentagon Thursday , Defense Secretary Mattis was asked by a reporter what would happen if North Korea fired a missile at the United States or threatened any allies this weekend .


`` The Framers ... conferred , as against the Government , the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights , and the right most valued by civilized men . ''\nWhile we were all consumed by impeachment , a pernicious piece of legislation was slowly and silently making its way through Congress . It is a renewal of Section 215 of the Patriot Act .\nThe Patriot Act of 2001 has three sections that are scheduled to expire on March 15 .\nOne of those sections is the infamous 215 , which authorizes the federal government to capture without a warrant all records of all people in America held by third parties .\nDo we really want the federal government to spy without warrants ? How can Congress , which has sworn to preserve , protect and defend the Constitution , legislate such a blatant violation of it ?\nAfter the Constitution was ratified in 1789 , it was soon amended to recognize the existence of natural rights and to keep the government from interfering with them .\nAs Justice Brandeis wrote 140 years afterward , the most comprehensive of those rights was the right to be let alone , which today we call privacy .\nThe purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from utilizing general warrants and to require judicially authorized search warrants issued under narrow circumstances .\nJames Madison , who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights , shared the hatred that colonists-turned-Americans had for general warrants .\nA general warrant was a document issued by a secret court in London authorizing the bearer of the document , usually a British soldier or intelligence agent , to search wherever he wished and to seize whatever he found .\nThe applicant for the warrant needed to demonstrate to the court only that the warrant was intended to unearth something that the government wanted .\nBecause these warrants did not specify the object of the search , there was no limit to them .\nHence Madison 's language in the Fourth Amendment preserving privacy but permitting the government to invade it only upon a showing , under oath , of probable cause of crime , and then requiring the warrant to specify in writing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized .\nAfter 9/11 , in the collective spirit of fear , timidity and subservience to the presidency , and in utter disregard for its members ' oaths to uphold the Constitution , Congress enacted the Patriot Act .\nIt permits one federal agent to authorize another federal agent to search and seize whatever the latter wishes to look at and capture so long as it is in the possession of third-party financial institutions .\nOver the years , the definition of `` financial institution '' has been radically expanded by both legislation and presidential executive orders so as to include nearly every conceivable entity that has any records about any person in America — from banks to hospitals to lawyers to merchants to credit card issuers to telecoms and computer service providers and even the post office .\nAt the same time that the Patriot Act was being expanded , the National Security Agency ( NSA ) — America 's 60,000-person strong domestic spy apparatus — was not even pretending to follow legislation . We know from Edward Snowden 's revelations — which have never been disputed by the government — that since 2003 , the NSA has captured not only the records of Americans held by third parties but also the records of every keystroke touched by every person in America and every telephone call transmitted over fiber optic cable .\nThat includes every email , text message and piece of data — even what was deleted . This warrantless mass surveillance continues today unabated .\nAlso unabated and equally unlawful and unconstitutional is the government 's use of cell towers as monitors of movement . Whenever anyone travels with a mobile device in the U.S. , the nearest cell tower picks up signals from the mobile device , even turned off .\nThe government , which either owns the cell towers or under Section 215 , captures all the data the towers amass , can effectively follow any person with a mobile device in real-time .\nThe feds have labored mightily to keep all of these constitutional violations as far from judicial scrutiny as they can . They rightly fear — they know — that all of this violates the Fourth Amendment .\nIf their nefarious behavior , which we know they have used on the president of the United States and on the Supreme Court , comes under judicial scrutiny , the feds will argue that the Fourth Amendment only pertains to criminal prosecutions and not to domestic spying ; thus , they can ignore it when they spy .\nThey have made up this argument out of thin air . There is neither a hint in the language of the amendment nor a whiff in its history to support that argument .\nIt is life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention getting into Heaven . How can we do any of this if the government we have hired to preserve our liberty is surreptitiously destroying it ?\nBrandeis ' language about being let alone was written in 1928 , in a dissent to a Supreme Court opinion that failed to recognize the right to privacy .\nToday , his dissent is the law of the land , but the feds ignore it .\nHe wrote that there is more to life than owning material goods .\nThere is the fulfillment of spiritual , intellectual and cultural goals and the achievement of intimate aspirations , none of which are the government 's business .\nWhy do we permit the government to assault our most basic freedoms , under the law or under the table ?\nJudge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey . He is Fox News ’ senior judicial analyst . Napolitano has been published in The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and numerous other publications . He is the author of the best-seller , `` Lies the Government Told You : Myth , Power , and Deception in American History . '' For more of Judge Napolitano 's reports , Go Here Now .


According to Gallup and most other other polling organizations , Americans have record or near-record low rates of confidence in government .\nJust 39 percent of us approved of Donald Trump 's performance in his second quarter as president , almost 25 points off the historical average . A mere 36 percent have a lot of faith in publis schools . Only slightly more than a quarter of us trust the criminal justice system and just 12 percent of us say we have a `` great deal of '' or `` quite a lot of '' confidence in Congress . Trust in most major institutions is lower than it was a decade ago .\nA lot of libertarians and other skeptics of government see this trend and believe that people are finally waking up to reality . But there are good reasons to be concerned about persistently low levels of trust and confidence in government .\nResearchers routinely find that `` people in countries with bad governments want more government intervention '' in all aspects of their lives , even though they do n't trust the government to be fair or effective . One 2010 study found that 82 percent of former East Germans and 92 percent of Russians–two famously `` low-trust '' populations–favored wage controls . Residents in Scandinavia and North America–which are `` high trust '' regions–were far more trusting of market forces .\nSo it turns out that government may be growing not in spite of our lack of confidence in it , but because of our lack of confidence in it . This self-defeating spiral will only get worse if the United States fails to stem its slide toward being a low-trust country .\nThe solution to this does n't have to be nihilism or anarchy . Instead , we need a government that does fewer things but does them better . Government spending is at an already swollen 21 percent of GDP and is predicted to climb to 30 percent over the next three decades . Libertarians rightly want a limited government and we should fight like hell to end cronyism , drug prohibition , and regulatory overreach that does nothing but increase the cost of doing business . We need to keep pushing back against defense spending wasted on elective wars and national security measures that put us under surveillance without making us safer .\nBut we should also point to places where government action is both legitimate and effective and praise policies–like school choice , for instance–that deliver better results at cheaper costs . Ironically , if we can get more people to trust the government , it just might be easier to shrink the size , scope , and spending of the state .\nProduced by Todd Krainin . Written by Nick Gillespie . Cameras by Jim Epstein .