Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has called off an official trip to Washington to meet with President Donald Trump after a tense phone call brought the two leaders to a policy-driven standstill. Peña Nieto was tentatively planning the trip for March, a White House official said, but the official confirmed to CNN that the trip was put on hold following the phone call, which took place on February 20. According to The Washington Post, which first reported the cancellation, officials from both countries told the paper that Peña Nieto “called off the plan after Trump would not agree to publicly affirm Mexico’s position that it would not fund construction of a border wall.” A White House official told CNN that any meeting would be awkward and counterproductive given Trump’s vow that Mexico would pay for the wall. The official said the call was “less hostile” than the one that occurred between the two leaders a year ago, but “no more productive” than that call either. At least one Mexican official, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, said Trump “lost his temper.” US officials described the President as being “frustrated and exasperated, saying Trump believed it was unreasonable for Peña Nieto to expect him to back off his crowd-pleasing campaign promise of forcing Mexico to pay for the wall.” According to the Post’s report, the two leaders “devoted a considerable portion” of this year’s call to discussing the wall. According to the paper, officials from both countries confirmed that Peña Nieto’s “desire to avoid public embarrassment — and Trump’s unwillingness to provide that assurance — that proved to be the dealbreaker.” This story was updated to reflect the timing of Peña Nieto’s tentative visit.


'Don't bury me,' Fareed Shawky pleaded as doctors doctors tended to his wounds from a missile strike 6-year-old Fareed died days later, and his words have been taken up by activists Thousands have died in the Saudi-led campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen “Don’t bury me.” 6-year-old Fareed Shawky cries as doctors treat his many shrapnel wounds. He is just a child. But more than six months of war in his country, Yemen, had taught him the bitter realities of conflict. People die, then they are buried. “Don’t bury me,” Fareed says again through tears. His young father stands across from him and smiles as if to dismiss his child’s fears. “I was trying to calm him down and at the same time my tears are falling, but I did not want him to feel it,” al-Thamry Shawky says, “I told him, ‘Don’t be afraid, my son. You will get better.’” The interaction was filmed this month by Ahmed Basha, a local photographer who recounted the story to CNN. “I thought he was just injured,” Basha says from his home in Taiz, Yemen’s third-largest city. “I wasn’t even sure I had been recording when he said this. I was more concerned with my still photography.” Four days later, Fareed died of wounds to his head. The boy was buried, hurriedly, by relatives. His own father could not bring himself to break his promise to his son. “I didn’t bury him. I couldn’t bury him.” The father told Basha through tears, “I stood far away as they put him in the ground.” When Basha got word of the child’s death, he began sifting through his footage. He published the video of the boy begging to live and began telling the world his story. It was quickly picked up by social media at a time when little else on Yemen’s war seems to gain much attention. It is the war the world forgot, activists say, and little Fareed is reminding us. Two rival factions are vying for power in Yemen: the Shiite Houthi rebel movement and the backers of ousted President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi. But the conflict is not binary. A secessionist movement in the south, a strong al Qaeda presence along the coast and the recent rise of ISIS all contribute to an increasingly volatile situation. The battle for control triggered the formation of an Arab coalition, led by Saudi Arabia, to intervene on behalf of the Hadi’s internationally recognized government. The Saudis and their predominantly Sunni allies consider the Houthis, who hail from northern Yemen, to be proxies for the Shiite government of Iran and fear another Shiite-dominated state in the region. The Houthis deny Iran supplies any direct material support. Airstrikes, battles and other spurts of bloodshed have taken their toll. The United Nations has attempted repeatedly, but to no avail, to resolve what it calls a “human catastrophe” that had killed or wounded more than 27,000 people as of midsummer, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and has left 80% of the population in need of humanitarian assistance. Four out of every five Yemenis are lacking the most basic things, including water, food, adequate medical care, and shelter, according to OCHA. For all this suffering, that doesn’t mean Yemenis have given up. Fareed’s story is now emblematic of Yemen’s struggles – and resilience. Activists are using the hashtag #dontburyme to call for an end to the bloodshed. The boy is being called the “Aylan Kurdi of Yemen” a reference to the Syrian toddler whose body washed up on a Turkish shore in September. “Fareed saw burial of neighbor kid killed by Houthi shell & was traumatized. Hence pleaded #DontBuryMe .. #Yemen” Hishal al-Omeisy, a prominent Yemeni activist, posted on Twitter. The hashtag originally started in Arabic, but as the story spread, more users began using the English version. “A child in #taiz told his father after he was injured: do not bury me. Sadly, the father could not [fulfill] his son’s call.#Dontburyme” Kawkab Ahmed, a Turkish observer, said on the microblogging site. Related video Security officials: 30 killed in Yemen wedding bombing When Saudi Arabia announced it would lead a coalition to forcibly remove the Houthis from its neighbor to the south, it  launched an aerial campaign sure to devastate one of the poorest and least developed countries in the Middle East. The Houthi movement formed in 1994 with the explicit political aim of gaining greater autonomy and defending its follower’s religious traditions as members of the Zaidi branch of Shiite Islam. The group has been at war with the central government for more than a decade, but their entry into Sanaa in September brought things to a head. Hadi and Prime Minister Khaled Bahah resigned in January under Houthi pressure, a few months after the rebels had fought their way into the capital, Sanaa, and demanded greater political influence. The kingdom says an exiled Hadi pleaded for military intervention in a letter posted by the country’s foreign ministry in March. More than six months into the Gulf-led offensive, Saudi Arabia has yet to reach its stated political objective. Instead, the war has shattered the already beleaguered population. Fareed’s family blame the Houthi rebels for his death. The boy was playing hide-and-seek just outside his home when he was struck in a missile attack. Four other children also were wounded, Basha told CNN. “All of a sudden I heard a loud explosion. Dust was falling on our heads. Everyone felt as if the blast was right next to them,” al-Thamry Shawky told Basha. “I ran out into the street with no shirt to look for Fareed. Where is Fareed?” Neighbors told Shawky his child had been taken by an ambulance to a nearby medical facility. He rushed to be by his son’s side. Rubble had fallen on Fareed’s head, leaving him with a large painful bump. There were bits of shrapnel digging into his skin, all over his small body. Shortly after pleading with his father to save him, Fareed fell into a coma. Last Saturday, he died. “Fareed was my whole life,” his mother says. “It was as if someone snatched my heart when I heard him say, ‘Don’t bury me.’” Photos from a city under siege Related video What in the World: The casualties of war in Yemen Children and education are among the first victims of a conflict where each of the warring parties has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for civilian life, according to an Amnesty International report published this summer. There is no safe place. Not even for children. Of the Yemenis who have been killed or injured by explosive weapons in towns or cities, 95% were civilians, according to a recent U.N. report. About 500 of the dead were children, according to UNICEF. “Our findings show Yemen is the worst country in the world this year for civilians affected by explosive violence, more devastating even than the crisis in Syria and Iraq,” Robert Perkins, author of the report said this month. “An already vulnerable population is now faced with a country reduced to rubble by falling bombs and rockets. Their homes destroyed, their families torn apart, it will take a many years to recover from the last few terrible months in Yemen.” Fareed’s family blame the Houthi rebels for his death. The boy was playing just outside his home when he was struck in a missile attack. Four other children also were wounded. “The family were thankful Fareed’s story reached the world,” Basha tells CNN, “They hope this will change the lives of Yemenis who have been suffering for so long.” Ancient city crumbling in civil war


Editor’s Note: Val Lauder, a former reporter for the Chicago Daily News and lecturer at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is the author of “The Back Page: The Personal Face of History.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely hers. A lone American reporter, working for the AP, broke the news of the end of World War II in Europe Val Lauder: For Edward Kennedy, the scoop destroyed his job and drew condemnation; but finally there's an apology from the AP decades later There’s breaking news, and then there’s BREAKING NEWS. Some is shock to the system: Think 9/11.  Some is anticipated in a way: Think election nights.  Each poses challenges to the editors and reporters covering the stories And then there’s the famous – infamous – AP bulletin. Edward Kennedy’s “scoop from hell.” It moved on the Associated Press wire on Monday, May 7, 1945, at 9:36 a.m. EST, 8:36 Chicago time. When I arrived in the city room of the Chicago Daily News a little before 9 – neither an editor nor a reporter, but a copygirl – the editors were already gathered around the horseshoe-shaped copy desk editing it. The Germans had surrendered. The war in Europe was over. Hallelujah! The fighting might still be raging in the Pacific, the island-hopping campaign having many an island to go before the Allies got to the big one: Japan.  But the war in Europe was over. Then someone asked, “Where’s UP?”  United Press, the other major wire-service.  Where was its bulletin? INS (the International News Service).  Reuters.  The networks – CBS and NBC (radio only then) – The New York Times, our own renowned Chicago Daily News Foreign Service.   Where were their bulletins? Every man there knew a false report of the German surrender in World War I caused a premature celebration of Armistice Day – a cable sent by the United Press. They asked Telegraph Editor George Dodge to call AP.  It stood by the story. The editors, having given up any thoughts of an EXTRA, faced a scheduled deadline: 10:30 – absolute, nonnegotiable, fish-or-cut-bait time.  And a headline was a customary thing. City Editor Clem Lane said, “Let’s tell ‘em what we know.  AP says …” Executive Editor Basil “Stuffy” Walters had to make the call.  He weighed it, nodded.  “OK.  We’ll go with what we know.  The Associated Press says …. And that’s what they did.  They put a kicker on it – to the left, above the headline, a newspaper item for what sets up a headline The Associated Press says GERMANS SURRENDER The phones on the city desk started ringing as word got out – apparently, the Germans had broadcast word of the surrender to their ships at sea – and people were calling to see whether it was true.  But we didn’t know. The morning wore on with conflicting reports. It’s over … or is it? Now it’s true … no, it’s not. The biggest story in the world was … what? Finally, in an afternoon edition, the story from AP. Here’s What Happened In Mix-up on V-E Day PARIS – AP – The public relations division of Allied Supreme Headquarters today suspended filing facilities of the Associated Press in the European theater until further notice. Brig. Gen. Frank Allen Jr., chief of the division, addressed this order to Edward Kennedy, chief of the Associated Press Paris bureau. “The Associated Press is suspended from filing copy by any means in this theater (European Theater of Operations) effective 1640 hours (9:40 a.m. Chicago time) this date, until charges are investigated in connection with the filing of a story under Reims dateline that SHAEF had officially announced the unconditional surrender of all German forces as of 0241 hours this date.” It was signed by Allen, and paragraph after paragraph followed, parsing what was official and what was not. Never disputed: Edward Kennedy had been one of the 16 correspondents invited to witness the surrender and flown to Reims, a city 80 miles east-northeast of Paris.  Aboard the plane, Allen, addressed them. “You represent the press of the world.  This story is entirely off the record until the heads of government have announced it.  I therefore pledge each of you on your honor not to communicate the results of the conference or the fact of its existence until it is released under the order of the public relations director of SHAEF.” (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) On their return to Paris, the AP story reported, Kennedy called The Associated Press office in London and told Lewis Hawkins of the London staff: “That’s official.  Get it out.” “Later,” the story said, “Kennedy inquired of Pitkin (Dwight Pitkin of the London staff) if the copy was moving satisfactorily through censorship.” Kennedy might have telephoned the London office for a reason.  The line from Paris to London was not monitored by censors, but the trans-Atlantic cable to New York was. That’s why Kennedy did not tell the London office that his dispatch was not authorized.  They’d have to tell New York, and the censor would pick it up and kill it. SHAEF not only suspended AP’s filing privileges, it “disaccredited” Kennedy.  The Associated Press returned him to New York. The New York Times story May 8, 1945, wound up in “A Treasury of Great Reporting” under the headline: “News beat or unethical double cross?” It used Kennedy’s story of the surrender but reported the confusion it had wrought.  And it addressed the ethical issue: “The next day fifty-four correspondents accredited to SHAEF addressed a bitter letter to General Eisenhower: ‘We have respected the confidence placed in us by SHAEF and as a result have suffered the most disgraceful, deliberate, and unethical double cross in the history of journalism.’”  Among the signers: correspondents for United Press, CBS and The New York Times. It said further: “It is clear that had Kennedy refused to promise anything on the plane he would have made certain of missing the great event, which no newsman in his right mind would have done.  Later he claimed that he had never promised to keep his mouth shut until it was opened officially and that instead of violating a fundamental tenet in journalism’s code of ethics, he was proud of what he had done.  One reporter quoted him as saying that the pledge should not have been exacted and that he did not feel bound by it.” The Times wrote in an editorial two days later that Kennedy had committed a “grave disservice to the newspaper profession.” Time magazine said the incident gave the press a black eye. The disdain for Edward Kennedy was so great that 15 years later, the CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite, a United Press correspondent in Europe in World War II, refused to stand when Kennedy offered his hand. When The Associated Press returned Kennedy to New York, it kept him on the payroll but gave him no work to do. In November, he was fired. He worked as the managing editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press for three years and in 1949, became the associate editor of The Monterey Herald, then its editor and associate publisher. “Kennedy tried for years to repair his damaged reputation,” said a 2013 article in The Atlantic Monthly.  It described the personal essay he’d written in 1948, “I’d Do It Again,” as “a lengthy self-defense.” “For the gaunt, intense Kennedy,” Christopher Hanson noted in The Atlantic, “it became the scoop from hell.” He wrote a memoir but could not find a publisher.  After his death in 1963, the manuscript lay in a box in his daughter’s attic, gathering dust, figuratively if not literally, for almost 50 years. In 2012, Louisiana State University Press published “Ed Kennedy’s War: V-E Day, Censorship & the Associated Press,” edited by his daughter, Julia Kennedy Cochran. Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press, and John Maxwell Hamilton, a University Press editor, co-wrote the introduction, saying, the AP “made a kneejerk response to repudiate him publicly to staunch an uproar.” They also applauded his reporting, concluding, “Edward Kennedy was the embodiment of the highest aspirations of The Associated Press and American journalism.” Curley issued a public apology for AP’s firing of Kennedy.  According to the Monterey Herald, “Curley rejected the notion that the AP had a duty to obey the order to hold the story once it was clear the embargo was for political reasons, rather than to protect the troops.” The publicity generated efforts to award Kennedy a Pulitzer Prize, posthumously.  A story in The Washington Post, November 24, 2012, ran under the headline:  “Pulitzer wanted for reporter who broke story on Nazi Germany’s surrender.” “Ed Kennedy has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize,” The Atlantic said, “honoring him in death for the decision that ended him in life.” Whatever the merits of giving Kennedy a Pulitzer, 15 other correspondents aboard that SHAEF plane honored the pledge “not to communicate the results of the conference or the fact of its existence until it is released under the order of the public relations director of SHAEF.” And Edward Kennedy called The Associated Press office in London. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


New report says United States failed to do its "homework" before airstrikes on civilians Syrian reports say mosque hit; US says al Qaeda meeting targeted A new report suggests American forces failed to take necessary precautions to avoid dropping a pair of bombs on a Northern Syria mosque full of hundreds of worshipers. Syrians said the US airstrikes hit a western Aleppo mosque on March 16, killing at least 40 worshipers and injuring dozens more. The US said the bombings targeted a meeting hall hosting al Qaeda terrorists. But Human Rights Watch said an investigation found no evidence to support the US claim that members of al Qaeda or any other armed group were meeting in the mosque. Interviews with locals and documentary evidence of the building in question suggest it was a well-known mosque that hosted lectures every Thursday between sunset and evening prayers, the group said. Any attempt to gather information about the building would have revealed that it was a popular gathering spot for residents at the time of the intended attack, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released Tuesday. “The US seems to have gotten several things fundamentally wrong in this attack, and dozens of civilians paid the price,” Ole Solvang, deputy emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “The US authorities need to figure out what went wrong, start doing their homework before they launch attacks, and make sure it doesn’t happen again.” The US military said in March that an airstrike killed “several terrorists” at a meeting location of senior al Qaeda terrorists in Idlib. A US military official confirmed to CNN that American warplanes conducted airstrikes in the area. But the official said the strikes hit a building 40 to 50 feet from the mosque, and said satellite imagery showed the mosque still standing. But the Human Rights Watch report said the US military misidentified the location of the attack, and that it was southwest of al-Jinah, not in Idlib. The attack was documented by UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Syria Civil Defense, better known as the White Helmets. Human Rights Watch interviewed a member of the White Helmets who was on the ground for the report, as well as four people who were in the building during the strikes. Using research from open source investigative group Bellingcat, which analyzed video footage and photographs from the attack, and Forensic Architecture, which created models of the mosque and a reconstruction of the attack, Human Rights Watch said it was able to corroborate claims that the building was a mosque. The locations of two large craters suggest the first bomb hit the mosque during prayers, sending survivors fleeing before a second blast hit people outside. Others who rushed to the scene to help also were killed, a witness told Human Rights Watch. Photos of the building before the attack show it had shelves for shoes and rugs for prayers, suggesting it was a mosque, the report said. Furthermore, a photo taken of the building after the attack shows a sign amid the rubble that reads “Saydina Omar ibn Al-Khattab Mosque.” Related video McCain: 'More latitude' for commanders in Syria The report calls on US authorities to make public findings of an investigation into the strikes, provide “adequate redress” to civilian victims and their families, and hold those responsible for the attack accountable. The United States has targeted al Qaeda fighters in Syria in past strikes. The Pentagon said 10 al Qaeda operatives were killed near Idlib in February. A US senior defense official told CNN an unmanned drone carried out that strike. US says it killed bin Laden-era al Qaeda leader in Syria US airstrikes have hit civilian facilities before. In 2015, a US airstrike hit a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 42 people. CNN’s Barbara Starr contributed to this report.


Jim Sciutto: DNI director James Clapper has expressed unease about loss of confidence in U.S. institutions As a reporter, Sciutto says, he's covered many countries where divisions led to instability U.S. is not Iraq or Somalia, and the economy is showing some strength but there are worrying signs, Sciutto says In the 15 years since 9/11, I’ve spent the bulk of my time as a journalist covering failed or failing states and countries in deep crisis. The root causes vary from war to economic collapse to popular revolution but the resulting conditions are familiar: fear, division, violence, and, over time, loss of hope. The places where I’ve reported most extensively on such instability won’t surprise you: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, the occupied territories, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Venezuela. US intelligence agencies rate these areas as among the most unstable in the world. So when I asked the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper at the Aspen Security Forum this summer if he saw any similar warning signs here at home, his answer surprised me: “I do worry,” he said. Noting that the US intelligence community has metrics for measuring nations’ stability, Clapper explained, “I guess if you apply that same measure against us, well, we are starting to exhibit some of them, too.” The measure he singled out as most telling is the loss of confidence in US institutions: “legal institutions, the rule of law, protection of citizens’ liberty, privacy,” all of which he described as “under assault,”  adding, “that’s not being helped by a lot of the rhetoric that we’re hearing.” To be clear, Mr. Clapper is not saying the US is Iraq or Somalia. But the nation’s top spy, with more than four decades in intelligence, is taking the rare step of warning in public that the trend lines in the US worry him. And having spent most of my own professional life covering nations in crisis, I find myself recognizing some disturbing commonalities as well. In Iraq, I watched Sunnis and Shias who had lived and worked together for years turn deeply suspicious, then hostile, then violent towards each other. In Iran, I watched different factions of the same Islamic-led government fight each other in the streets. In Myanmar, I watched a Buddhist government and its functionaries beat and murder Buddhist monks, the personification of their faith and national identity. That these were people not only of the same nationality but also of the same race and religion didn’t matter. Seeing your opponents as fundamentally different and threatening can come to justify remarkable brutality. Despite diverse cultures, histories, and geographies, there is a surprising uniformity when nations splinter apart. I wrote a piece several years ago called “The Police State Playbook”,  on how dictators from Zimbabwe to Myanmar to Iran – whether African and Christian, Asian and Buddhist, or Middle Eastern and Muslim – turned on their people in nearly identical ways. The same goes for their populations. And I’m not talking about natural political disagreement, but an us-against-them mentality that leads people to see the other side as not only wrong but unpatriotic and dangerous. Violent division is not new to the US of course, even in modern times. Many commentators are drawing parallels between today’s divisions and the upheaval of the 1960s. However, today’s divisiveness – as Director Clapper highlighted – comes at a time of cratering trust in the laws and institutions that have overcome such discord in the past. Today, two months away from a major US presidential election, only 11% of Trump supporters and 49% of Clinton supporters  are very confident that votes nationally will be counted accurately, the Pew Research Center found. More broadly, only 19 percent of Americans  say they trust the government “always or most of the time,” according to a 2015 study, also released by Pew. These doubts extend to a whole host of institutions. According to Gallup’s latest survey, only 36% of Americans express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the presidency, the same for the Supreme Court. The number for the criminal justice system is 23%, for Congress, an anemic 9%. As possible causes, experts cite everything from political gridlock to the increasing politicization of the supreme court. Some ratings are the lowest since Gallup began measuring them. The numbers for the television and print media are paltry: 20% and 21%, driven in part by the growing polarization of media outlets and the increasing influence of social media “echo chambers” where consumers view only information and analysis that conforms with their views. Such distrust in the media has undermined the very possibility of agreed upon facts. Today, one in five Americans believe the president was born out of the country and 29% believe he is Muslim, despite widely available and reported evidence to the contrary, including President Obama releasing a copy of his birth certificate. Nineteen percent of Americans believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. I got a personal taste of this new hostility to facts when I tweeted a quote from Alt-Right leader Jared Taylor last week in which he explicitly disputed that the races are equal. I was immediately inundated by comments expressing support for his view, many quoting as fact long-debunked “science.” Related article 15 years after 9/11: 'How to honor the son we lost' Compare the surveys of Americans to those in countries we view as failing or already failed. In Afghanistan, according to a 2015 survey by the Asia Foundation, 57% express confidence in the democratic process, still relatively high even after declining significantly in recent years. The same percentage approves of the performance of the national government. In Iraq, a 2015 Gallup survey found 60% express confidence in the national government. These remarkable contrasts do not mean that the US is headed for civil war or on a par with the violence we see today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Negative outcomes several degrees short of that, however, would be deeply disorienting and disturbing. The most unstable societies I’ve covered are ones where most believe the system doesn’t work, or works only for a few. Jim Sciutto The most unstable societies I’ve covered are ones where most believe the system doesn’t work, or works only for a few. This destroys a sense of community and shared mission, and creates a carry-on effect: success becomes a zero sum game. There are no shared benefits. My betterment comes at the expense of yours, and the other way around. Despite increasing divisions like this, the US is a country of remarkable contrasts. Its economy is growing faster than much of the world’s and with far lower unemployment. Anyone who travels the country can see that local politics are far more functional, even at times heroic, than the current perception of Washington. Again, the US is not Iraq or Somalia. A more apt comparison today could be Brazil, where economic slowdown and collapsing confidence in government has led to the impeachment of a president, a broader political crisis and popular unrest. But as with nations in crisis or approaching it, the US is not immune to peoples’ worst impulses, which have led such nations down a dangerous path. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook “We pride ourselves on the institutions that have evolved over hundreds of years,” Clapper told me, “and I do worry about the…fragility of those institutions.” The US has suffered and survived dangerous crises and divisions in its past. The events of 9/11 were, of course, among the most challenging and potentially divisive. Still, the lesson of today’s world is that the barriers between stability and instability – the ones Americans count on – are often more fragile than we think.


A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Trump's travel ban will remain blocked The President is currently examining several options to save the ban Approximately 3,000 people from the seven countries listed in President Donald Trump’s travel ban were allowed to enter the US between February 4 and February 6, according to figures provided Saturday by the Department of Homeland Security. Trump signed an executive order last month barring foreign nationals from Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen from entering the country for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days, and all refugees from Syria indefinitely. But a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Trump’s travel ban will remain blocked after an earlier court raised concerns about the constitutionality of the ban among other things. The unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel means citizens of the seven majority-Muslim countries were able to travel to the US, despite Trump’s executive order. The 3,000 number does not include lawful-permanent-residents because they are not within the scope of Trump’s executive order, DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told CNN. During the same period in 2016, 1,817 from the seven impacted countries were admitted to the US. The White House announced Friday that they will not immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and are working on “possible tweaks” to the executive order. The President is currently examining several options to save the ban and is expected to introduce the changes next week.


Putin says establishment of deescalation zones would strengthen the ceasefire in Syria Russia and Turkey have restored bilateral ties strained by the downing of a Russian plane in 2015 Russia and Turkey are in favor of creating “de-escalation” zones in Syria in order to “cement” a ceasefire in the country, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday at a joint press conference with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “One of the ways of strengthening the ceasefire is to set up these de-escalation zones and that was also voiced by US President Donald Trump. We have discussed that and as far as I understand the US administration is supporting that idea,” Putin said, following talks with Erdogan in the Russian resort town of Sochi. Erdogan said that a new conflict-free zone would be set up in the Idlib area. Such zones are meant to be areas where civilians can live without being targeted by any party in Syria’s war. Putin and US President Donald Trump had their first phone conversation Tuesday since Trump ordered missile strikes against a Syrian air base last month. The US strikes were in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held Syrian town that was widely blamed on the Syrian regime. Trump and Putin discussed Trump’s proposal to create safe zones, according to a White House readout of their call. They also agreed that “the suffering in Syria has gone on for far too long and that all parties must do all they can to end the violence.” Participants in a new round of Syrian ceasefire talks in Astana, Kazakhstan have discussed the memorandum on de-escalation zones in Syria, Kazakh Foreign Ministry official Aidarbek Tumatov said on Wednesday, according to Russian state news agency TASS. Related video US troops patrol Syria's border with Turkey But earlier, the Syrian opposition delegation walked out of the talks over what it described as continued regime violations of the ceasefire, a member of the High Negotiation Committee representing the opposition told CNN. The delegation released a two-page document accusing the regime of continuing to bombard and advance into areas in violation of a ceasefire agreement signed December 30, 2016. The document accuses Russia of not fulfilling its role as a guarantor of the agreement. “The continuation of this bombing will destroy the entire process,” it read. Russia is working on a proposal that would see peacekeepers separating four opposition-held areas in Syria from regime forces, a former member of the High Negotiation Committee told CNN. These four opposition pockets would be in the south, around Idlib, around Homs, and near Damascus, the source said. Civilians would be able to move freely in and out of these zones, the source added. After the meeting – their second in as many months – Putin and Erdogan agreed formally to restore bilateral ties between their countries and restore trade and services that had been impacted by restrictions imposed by either side. Related video Breaking down Turkey's rapprochement with Russia “Turkey is a very important partner. Bilateral relations have been tested in the recent past, but are now back on track,” said Putin. Relations between the two nations soured after Turkey’s air force shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian-Turkish border in November 2015, triggering a year of tumultuous diplomacy and economic sanctions. But in recent months, the two leaders have shown greater unity as they’ve emerged as significant powers in the Syrian conflict. Turkey also is increasingly looking to Russia as an ally as Ankara’s relations with the West worsen. The Kremlin has worked closely with Erdogan to negotiate ceasefires and bring about a potential diplomatic solution to the Syria conflict, despite the two countries holding very different ideas on the future role of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and differing priorities on the ground. Related video Watch: Images show ISIS 'capital' Raqqa Putin’s priorities include consolidating Russia’s leading role in Syria, preserving a delicate entente with Turkey in leading the Syrian “peace process,” and continuing to try to coax it away from Europe and NATO as part of a broader strategy of weakening the Western alliance. Russian support has been key to keeping Assad in power. Erdogan’s focus, meanwhile, is on promoting Turkey’s interests in Syria, if possible at the expense of the Kurds, and on securing a role in the offensive against Raqqa, the ISIS stronghold in Syria. He wants Assad out and also to put the US on notice that there are alternatives to American leadership in the region. Putin’s talks with Erdogan came a day after he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Sochi, as Berlin-Moscow relations remain stuck at a low over the Ukraine crisis and Syrian war. CNN’s Lindsay Isaac, Eyad Kourdi and Nic Robertson contributed to this report.


It’s Day 4 of the Trump administration, and the President had a busy day to kick off his first work week. Three executive actions and meetings with both CEOs and union leaders are among the highlights. White House press secretary Sean Spicer held court with the press for over an hour, hitting topics ranging from Obamacare to immigration. TRADE Trump’s first executive actionTPP vs RCEP: Trade deals explainedTPP withdrawal – 5 things to know Watch: Why the TPP is such a big deal ‘Trump’s TPP move is misdirection’ ‘Bad news for Americans?’Killing TPP leaves door open for China‘What does the US want in the Pacific?’ Trump’s first executive actionTPP vs RCEP: Trade deals explainedTPP withdrawal – 5 things to know Watch: Why the TPP is such a big deal ‘Trump’s TPP move is misdirection’ ‘Bad news for Americans?’Killing TPP leaves door open for China‘What does the US want in the Pacific?’ HEALTH CARE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT OBAMACARE TRADE IMMIGRATION ECONOMY TAXES ENVIRONMENT/ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TUESDAY – OBAMACARE TUESDAY – IMMIGRATION WEDNESDAY – EVERYTHING WEDNESDAY/THURSDAY/FRIDAY – EVERYTHING FRIDAY – TRADE


Without naming GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, Obama also slammed the Texas senator's plan to carpet bomb ISIS The President defended the measures he's put in place, including airstrikes on ISIS' leaders, infrastructure and financial system President Barack Obama pledged Wednesday to “defeat” those who threaten the world with terrorism. The United States will “continue to go after ISIL aggressively until it’s removed from Syria and from Iraq and finally destroyed,” Obama said, using another name for ISIS. “The world has to be united against terrorism,” Obama said, adding that “that’s a top priority of ours.” He added that “we can and we will” defeat terrorism. At the same time, he said, ISIS “is not an existential threat” to the U.S. He was speaking at a news conference in Argentina the day after more than 30 people were killed in terrorist attacks in Brussels. Without naming GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz, Obama also slammed the Texas senator’s plan to carpet bomb ISIS when asked about the idea at the news conference. “Not only is that contrary to our values,” the President said, but, he added, “that would be an extraordinary mechanism for ISIL to recruit more people.” The President is in Buenos Aires for the second stop of a Latin America trip that started in Cuba. It’s the first visit by a U.S. president for bilateral talks in almost 20 years and is meant to cement ties with Argentina’s newly established centrist government, but Obama mentioned Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Europe in his opening remarks. RELATED: Obama looks for fresh start with Argentina Obama was also questioned about political criticism from Republican presidential candidates that his approach to fighting ISIS isn’t working and that he’s not focused enough on it. Obama dismissed the suggestion and the approach many in the GOP are advocating. “When it comes to defending the United States or its allies and our core interests, I will not hesitate to use military force where necessary,” Obama said. “But how we do that is important,” he added. “We just don’t go ahead and blow something up just so we can go back home and say we blew something up. That’s not a foreign policy.” The President pointed to Cruz’s own family history as a reason why the latter’s policies wouldn’t work, particularly his suggestion Tuesday that police patrol American Muslim communities. “I just left a country that engages in that kind of surveillance,” Obama said of his previous stop in Cuba, “which by the way the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America, the land of the free.” Later Wednesday, Obama described the Republican Party as deeply split after drifting from the “mainstream” in an effort to oppose his policies. But he said the potential damage inflicted by a Republican president wouldn’t necessarily be longstanding. “Even if we end up with someone I might not consider a great president, there’s a limit to some of the damage they can do,” Obama said, citing the separation of powers in the federal system. “I’m sure Republicans feel the same way about me.” Obama has said previously that he’s confident a Democrat will be elected to replace him, and praised both Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for addressing income inequality in their campaigns. But he said that even if neither of them win the White House, the country would be safeguarded from long-term deterioration. “I’m confident the American people will make a good choice,” he said, adding: “We usually can recover from mistakes.” In the earlier news conference, Obama argued that one reason the U.S. has been insulated from more attacks is that its Muslim community is “successful, patriotic, integrated” and not ghettoized. “Any approach that would single them out and treat them for discrimination would not only be wrong,” Obama said, “it would be counterproductive because it would reduce the anti-bodies we have to reduce terrorism.” RELATED: Ted Cruz: Police need to ‘patrol and secure’ Muslim neighborhoods But he defended the measures he’s put in place, saying that airstrikes on ISIS’ leaders, infrastructure and financial system, have reduced the terrorist group’s territory by about 40%. He also cited the work of U.S. Special Operations forces working with Iraqis, efforts to go after ISIS couriers and to disrupt the connection between strongholds in Mosul, Iraq, and Raqaa, Syria. “While we’re doing that, we’re also extra vigilant” to work to prevent attacks,” Obama said, “but as I said before, this is difficult work.” “It’s challenging to find, identify very small groups of people who are willing to die themselves and can walk into a crowd and detonate a bomb,” Obama said. The death toll from the attacks at Brussels’ airport and the city’s Maelbeek metro station now stands at 31, with about 270 people injured and many still unaccounted for, including American citizens. State Department officials said they are making “every effort” to account for the welfare of all U.S. citizens in the city and are still working through an accounting of all its personnel at the embassy. “Approximately a dozen” Americans were injured in the attack, the officials said. The suicide attacks, claimed by ISIS, were carried out by a group that included two brothers with a history of violent crimes, Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Belgian authorities said. Belgian media reported that one person was arrested Wednesday, while counterterror official Paul Van Tigchelt warned Wednesday that there were others involved in the plot who remained at large in Belgium and still posed a threat.


Could big brands save millions of dollars a year and help preserve the environment just by slightly changing their logos? French graphic designer Sylvain Boyer thinks so, and he’s started a project to demonstrate it. All it takes, he says, is to redesign the logos to use less ink. Since corporate giants print them so frequently and on so many different materials, just a small change can have a huge effect. Boyer has started a campaign called “Ecobranding” to demonstrate the idea: “It all came to me in 2013, the year my first daughter was born. I was designing a birth announcement card with many colors which was looking great on the computer, but when I submitted the design to the printer for silkscreen printing the bill was greatly expensive too! I decided to reduce the number of colors, with a direct consequence of making it more affordable and greener,” he told CNN. Boyer has redesigned some of the world’s most famous logos for reduced ink usage, with savings ranging from 10 to 39 percent: “We used the tools of the offset printing industry, which allow us to calculate very precisely the rate of printed surface. Then it’s only mathematics,” he said. The changes are subtle, but their effects would be massive at scale, Boyer argues: “Every creative decision taken in brand design has a direct impact on our environment. When you draw one logo for a big company, in fact you draw millions of logos because it will be reproduced millions or billions of times in many formats, with a major ecological and economic impact,” he said. Printer ink is one of the world’s most expensive liquids. In 2013, Consumer Reports calculated that it can cost between $13 and $75 per ounce ($1,664 to $9,600 per gallon), making it more expensive than Champagne and designer perfume. That means that even saving a little of it can go a long way. But how much money would companies save? Boyer says it’s hard to come up with an accurate estimate, but he’s willing to try: “Last year, Starbucks produced about 670 million paper cups, with its logo printed on each one. We can estimate, and I insist that it’s only a speculation, that a single logo print could use 0.06 ml of ink. Our redesigned logo uses 38 percent less ink, or 0.0228 ml per cup, which could save nearly 4,000 gallons of ink a year.” It’s an established idea that typography can affect ink usage and reduce the impact of printing on the environment. Although printer cartridges can be recycled, most end up in landfills, where their plastic casings can last hundreds of years. A Dutch company called SPRANQ started creating eco-friendly fonts in 2008 and later developed an application, Ecofont, that modifies any typeface by inserting tiny holes in the solid areas. Businesses can use it for their everyday printing, savings up 50 percent ink, according to SPRANQ. A similar approach is taken by Ryman Eco, a free font designed by London advertising agency Grey and stationery brand Ryman that uses 30 percent less ink than popular typefaces like Arial, Times New Roman and Verdana: “The central idea of Ryman Eco was to design a compact, readable type that saved ink by reducing the overall surface area of the letters printed,” said Dan Rathigan, who designed the font. “Admittedly, this is dealing with savings of very small margins indeed. Grey’s campaign for Ryman Eco was intended to start conversations about how many small gestures to reduce material waste could contribute to a larger impact.” In 2014, a teenager made headlines around the world when he said that by switching from the typeface Times New Roman to the less ink-intensive Garamond, the US government would save $400 million a year. Boyer says that by shrinking a logo’s ink footprint some secondary benefits also arise, such as reduced printing costs and even a cut in energy consumption, because the associated digital files occupy less space on servers. He does realize, though, that not all brands would take changing their logo lightly: “Maintaining the differentiating attributes of the brand while providing an eco-friendly design is going to be the major challenge that we will have to face,” he said. “It’s a debate about branding in general. Some people think we should not touch the ingredients of the brand because it’s a sacred temple, others think that we can evolve the brand without changing its DNA to better meet the expectations and aspirations of our time.” According to Tom Rickner, a type designer and director of Monotype Studio, there might be some resistance: “Redesigning types to reduce line lengths or ink usage is not a new concept. Much of Monotype’s early work for newspaper publishing was focused around finding the right balance between readability and ‘characters per pica’, the all-important measure of how much text you could fit in a column or on a page,” he said. “In the age of branding, the same balance needs to be achieved, with the additional consideration of maintaining the brand voice. Type, along with color and imagery, is one of the primary means of establishing a brand voice. Making changes in the type solely for the reduction of an ecological impact needs to be considered in these broader contexts.”


US, China remained committed to reining in North Korea's nuclear program, leaders say Xi says China will participate in next year's Rim of the Pacific military exercises Less than a week after a historic North Korean missile test, the leaders of the United States and China pledged to work together to stop Kim Jong Un’s nuclear missile program. “Something has to be done,” US President Donald Trump said during the brief public portion of a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Germany. There will “eventually be a success” against Pyongyang, Trump said. “It may take longer than I’d like. It may take longer than you’d like. But there will be success in the end one way or the other.” Xi told Trump that China remains “firmly committed to denuclearizing the (Korean) peninsula,” according to a report from China’s state-run Xinhua news agency. A solution on North Korea must come through dialogue and consultation involving the international community, Xi said. Tensions between the US and North Korea spiked last week, when Pyongyang tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Analysts said the test showed the missile could reach much of the US state of Alaska. The US and South Korea responded with military shows of force, including missile tests of their own and a practice bombing mission from US Air Force B-1 bombers, accompanied by South Korean warplanes. The response ran counter to China’s repeated calls for North Korea’s to stop its missile and nuclear tests in exchange for the US and South Korea halting the joint military drills that antagonize the Kim regime. As a longtime ally of North Korea and its top trading partner, China is seen by many – including the Trump administration – as the key to a solution on the Korean Peninsula. While Trump has in the past praised what appeared to be China’s early efforts to exert pressure on its neighbor, he tweeted last month that those efforts had “not worked out.” Related video N. Korea blames U.S. for ICBM test, vows more 'gifts' In remarks before their Hamburg meeting, Xi said “sensitive issues still exist” in the US-China relationship that “require a great amount of work.” The leaders appear to have made at least some progress on those issues, according to messages conveyed after the meeting. Trump tweeted they’d had an “excellent” exchange on trade and North Korea. Leaving Hamburg for Washington, D.C. and the WH. Just left China’s President Xi where we had an excellent meeting on trade & North Korea. Briefing reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the discussion was “very direct.” “I think there were substantive discussions about the financing of North Korea, we had substantive discussions about ways of dealing with North Korea together,” Mnuchin said. In a lengthy report on the meeting, Chinese state media said Xi had reiterated China’s strong opposition to the US deployment of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in South Korea, which remains a sore point in US-China relations. While the US says the system is needed for defense against North Korea, China believes it threatens its own security because its radars could be used to spy on Beijing’s defense and nuclear deterrent systems. The two countries also signaled closer military ties. Xi proposed that China’s defense minister and the US secretary of defense “carry out an exchange of visits as soon as possible,” Xinhua reported. It also said China would participate in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific military exercises, a biennial event known as the world’s largest international maritime military exercise. In 2016, 26 nations, including China, took part in the exercise off Hawaii. On non-military issues, Xi said a 100-day action plan put into place after his April summit at Trump’s Mar-a-logo estate in Florida is bearing fruit and a further year-long plan is being considered, Xinhua reported. “China and the United States have decided to hold the first round of a comprehensive economic dialogue on July 19, and launch the first round of a law enforcement, cybersecurity, social and cultural dialogue at an early date,” Xinhua reported. A White House statement issued after Saturday’s meeting provided none of the specifics listed by Xinhua. “The two leaders also reviewed work in other areas in the bilateral relationship, including economic issues such as reciprocal trade and market access. President Trump and President Xi directed their security and economic teams to make progress in upcoming dialogues,” the White House statement said. White House officials later said there would be a US-China meeting in Washington this month on a “comprehensive economic dialogue,” one of several “substantive issues” Mnuchin said were covered. Mnuchin pointed out that the Xi-Trump meeting “lasted over an hour and a half, and would have lasted longer if we didn’t have to get pulled out to leave, since we had a time issue.” Meanwhile, Gary Cohn, director of Trump’s National Economic Council, gushed about how well Trump gets along with his counterparts, including Xi. “The relationships that he’s building and the comradery that he has is just extraordinary,” Cohn said. “You can see the personal relationship he has with Xi and (Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo) Abe and all these people.  The warmness and the openness that’s going on between the two of them, it’s really extraordinary.” CNN’s Hilary Whiteman contributed to this report.

US-China relations on North Korea nuclear program


Trump tells Reuters that he values Xi's help, would speak to him before communicating with Taipei Trump caused diplomatic waves as President-elect by taking a call from Taiwan's leader US President Donald Trump has said that he would want to consult with Chinese President Xi Jinping before speaking to Taiwan’s leader. In an interview with Reuters news agency, Trump said he wouldn’t want to “cause difficulty” for the Chinese leader by again breaking with the “one China” policy. “He’s a friend of mine. He’s actually a – I think he’s doing an amazing job as a leader, and I wouldn’t want to do anything that comes in the way of that. So, I would certainly want to speak to him first,” Trump said. China does not recognize Taiwan’s independence, and under the “one China” policy the US has a long tradition of respecting that stance. Trump caused ructions late last year when as President-elect he accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. As China launched an official complaint, Trump tweeted: “Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.” Tsai recently told Reuters that another call between herself and Trump was a possibility. “We have the opportunity to communicate more directly with the US government,” Tsai said in the interview, although she conceded that China’s influence would be a consideration of Trump’s. On Friday, Taiwanese presidential spokesman Alex Huang said that she was responding to “hypothetical questions” in the interview and said Taiwan understands the United States’ priorities in affairs in Asia, adding there are no plans for a phone call between Tsai and Trump. Since coming to office, Trump’s rhetoric on China has improved dramatically as he seeks the country’s help in putting pressure on North Korea to stop its missile and nuclear tests. “Well, my problem is that I’ve established a very good personal relationship with President Xi. And I really feel that he is doing everything in his power to help us with a big situation, so I wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him,” he said, referring to the increasingly tense standoff with Pyongyang. Shortly after his election, as President-elect, Trump had a 10-minute phone conversation with Tsai, a move that angered Beijing and upended decades-long US policy on China and Taiwan. Washington officially acknowledges Taiwan being part of China and the People’s Republic’s status as the sole legitimate government of China, a stance that forms the basis of Chinese diplomacy and policy-making and determines Sino-US relations. Beijing lodged an official complaint after the call. And in Communist Party newspapers, the reaction was harsh. “No matter what the reasons are behind Trump’s outrageous remarks, it appears inevitable that Sino-US ties will witness more troubles in his early time in the White House than any other predecessor,” said an op-ed in the Global Times. Before the call, no US President or President-elect had spoken directly to the Taiwanese leader since the 1970s, and the then-Secretary of State said the Trump transition team had not contacted the Department of State ahead of the call. Despite being bullish on the future of the US’ official position on the matter, Trump eventually reneged and committed to the decades-long policy. Sino-US relations seemed to have righted somewhat after Xi and Trump met earlier in April at the US President’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Now Trump, eager to stop rapid advances in North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, is signaling a break with decades of US policy as he looks to commit China to ramping up pressure on North Korea. Trump’s sweetening the pot, offering China better trade terms if the Asian powerhouse takes steps to put North Korea’s provocative behavior to rest. China accounts for 80% of North Korea’s foreign trade and has significant political leverage over North Korea. “We have tremendous trade deficits with everybody, but the big one is with China … And I told them, ‘You want to make a great deal?’ Solve the problem in North Korea. That’s worth having deficits. And that’s worth having not as good a trade deal as I would normally be able to make,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal in an interview last week, a day after he spoke with Xi by phone. However, Trump said of the Florida summit that Xi had tutored him on some of the nuances of the geopolitics of the Korean Peninsula, including the fact that China simply can’t eliminate North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. “After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Trump told the Journal. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power (over) North Korea … But it’s not what you would think.” He has also walked back on statements made on the campaign trail, in which he labeled China a “currency manipulator,” something he has called a strategic move. CNN’s Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report


Editor’s Note: Samantha Vinograd is a CNN National Security Analyst. She served on President Obama’s National Security Council from 2009-2013 and at the Treasury Department under President Bush. Follow her @sam_vinograd. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Every week, I offer a glimpse of the kind of intelligence assessments that are likely to come across the desk of the President of the United States. Modeled on the President’s Daily Briefing, or PDB, which the director of national intelligence prepares for the President almost daily, my Presidential Weekly Briefing focuses on the topics and issues the President needs to know to make informed decisions. Here’s this week’s briefing: Reports indicate the Syrian regime, yet again, launched a suspected chemical weapons attack against civilians – this time in Douma in beleaguered Eastern Ghouta. Douma was the last rebel held foothold in the area, and talks between the rebels and the regime collapsed on Friday. The Syrian government and its patron, Russia, denied any involvement and said that the rebels in Douma made up the chemical weapons attack to try to increase international involvement in Syria and impede Syrian regime advances. Sadly, this is a horrifically familiar scene. The regime has repeatedly used chemical weapons against its people, denied it and continued to maintain the support of Russia and Iran. Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader, feels uninhibited – particularly because options to counter his strength, short of military intervention, are limited. Russia has prevented any real action against Assad at the UN Security Council, where it has used its veto power to impede efforts to hold Assad accountable for his actions, including ending an extended investigation into the regime’s potential use of chemical weapons. The State Department condemned the attack on Saturday evening, and Vice President Mike Pence condemned it on Sunday. Meanwhile, Mr. President, your tweets have garnered quite a bit of attention – particularly this one: “Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad.” Related article Is Vladimir Putin Trump's top adviser on Syria? The fact is, Assad does not feel deterred from using every tool in his tool box to target civilians, so the immediate question is what kind of action will deter him going forward? Verbal condemnations are not working. Sanctions against Russia for its support for Assad aren’t working (we even sanctioned more Russians for its support for the Syrian regime last week). And almost a year after the US missile strike on a Syrian air base in response to another chemical weapons attack (which Syria also denied), the international community is wondering if another military strike is imminent and if military action is the only thing that Syria, Russia and Iran will respond to. We now have 2,000 US troops in Syria – you have said you would like to withdraw them soon – but their mission is countering ISIS, not fighting the regime. Ambassador John Bolton starts as National Security Advisor on Monday and the National Security Council may propose another strike, additional ground forces or shifting the mission of the existing 2,000 US service members to address chemical weapons’ use and asking other countries to devote resources to countering Assad’s use of such weapons. But bear in mind that Russia has mercenaries in Syria – despite denials – who have come into contact with US troops, so any military action in Syria could involve confrontation with Russia. With the deployment of National Guardsmen to the southern border and with the Mexican presidential race underway, we anticipate more Mexican backlash against a border wall and US suggestions – including via tweet –  that Mexico is to blame for illegal immigration, cross-border drug flows, crime or the NAFTA “cash cow.” The current President of Mexico, Enrique Pena Nieto, issued a video last week in which he said that “If your recent statements are the result of frustration due to domestic policy issues, to your laws or to your Congress, it is to them that you should turn to, not to Mexicans. We will not allow negative rhetoric to define our actions.” He referenced the Mexican Senate’s unanimous resolution condemning your rhetoric. Related video What the US-Mexico border really looks like Mexican presidential candidates also made statements. The leading candidate in the polls, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has said that “neither Mexico nor its people will be treated like a piñata by any foreign government.” He added that Mexicans will never accept the use of force or militarization of the border and that he will go to the United Nations if you try to build the wall. Candidate Ricardo Anaya went further, saying Mexico won’t be treated like a doormat and calling for Mexico to limit anti-terrorism cooperation as long as the National Guard is on the border. With the National Guard deploying, efforts to renegotiate NAFTA underway and increasing tensions between our two countries, it is highly likely that Mexican presidential candidates will continue to campaign against your administration’s policies. It is also expected that the next Mexican president will be elected, at least in part, because of his anti-Trump agenda, which could have implications for cooperation going forward. It’s going to be another bumpy ride with the Russians this week. We assess that they’ll continue to follow their historic pattern of misbehavior: do something wrong, vehemently deny it, accuse others of wrongdoing and try to throw the West off balance. Just looking at their reaction to Sergei Skirpal, we have our case in point. The international community assesses that it was highly likely that Russia was behind the nerve agent attack against Skirpal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England. The international community responded by kicking out Russian diplomats and seizing diplomatic property. And now Russia has said “with a high degree of probability” that the intelligence services of other countries are behind the attack. Russia even called for a special UN Security Council meeting into the attack (the same council it manipulates to avoid any real action against Syria) and used the meeting to tell the UK it would be sorry for accusing Moscow of the attack. Related article Why Russia keeps laughing at the world We also expect Russia to respond to the new US sanctions, issued last week against seven oligarchs, 12 oligarch owned companies, Russian government officials, and the Russian state-owned weapons company. The Russian PR machine launched into action right after the sanctions were issued and vowed a harsh response. We anticipate that Putin will look for a tit-for-tat response to these most recent sanctions – perhaps creating his own list of wealthy Americans to sanction. Back in 2014, after the US sanctioned Russian lawmakers for their actions in Crimea, Russia sanctioned 9 US lawmakers. Sanctioning American businessmen this time around won’t actually do much (it will be symbolic) because wealthy Americans don’t have a lot of assets in Russia. But it’s possible that Russia may also try to up the ante with something that really pulls at the heartstrings of the American people. News leaked that there are secret talks underway to prepare for a meeting with Kim Jong Un. Reports had first surfaced last month that we are using intelligence channels to communicate with the North Koreans, and there are now more public reports that outgoing CIA Director Mike Pompeo, your new Secretary of State nominee, has been leading our efforts to prepare for a summit through intelligence channels and that he may meet with his North Korean counterpart before a leader-to-leader meeting. Intelligence channels are the logical way to go because US intelligence officials have been in direct contact with the North Koreans before. In 2014, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper traveled to North Korea and brought home US hostages. The intel-to-intel channel can be used to work out tricky logistics, like where the meeting is going to take place. The North Koreans unsurprisingly will want the meeting in Pyongyang because Kim has historically not liked to travel (though he did go to China a few weeks ago). Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook But we should consider saving this trump card for when the North Koreans have actually done something. They have talked about denuclearization, but we have yet to see any freeze on their nuclear program or actual steps. They need to do what it takes to deserve a presidential visit. If our intelligence professionals think the North Koreans are serious, incoming National Security Adviser John Bolton will lead a complex interagency process to determine North Korean motivations, US goals and red lines for the summit, and our strategy to achieve them. Bolton’s reputation as a hawk – and his public statements about wanting military action against North Korea – mean he’ll have an uphill battle convincing the national security team and the North Koreans that he’s running an unbiased process that will give diplomacy a real chance.


Last June, Brendan Cox was at a restaurant with a colleague when he received a life-changing phone call. His wife, British lawmaker Jo Cox, had been attacked. “I remember running to the train just thinking, just be OK, like if you’re injured, if you’re hurt, we’ll be OK, we’ll put you all back together, just don’t die. Then I was on the train and spoke to her sister, Kim, who told me that she hadn’t made it,” Cox recalls. Jo Cox, 41, was shot and stabbed to death on a street in Birstall, northern England, following a meeting with some of her constituents on June 16 last year. The attack, which happened just days before the Brexit referendum, shocked Britain. Related article In Jo Cox's town, shock at an unthinkable crime In the days after her brutal murder, with the encouragement of family and strangers, Brendan began to write. His tribute to the life and career of his wife – a young Labour Party MP heralded as a champion for women, immigrants and the vulnerable – helped him “process what has happened.” Brendan Cox’s book, “Jo Cox: More in Common,” was released on the anniversary of Jo’s brutal murder this month. The title serves as a poignant reference to his wife’s maiden speech in Parliament, when she spoke of how British communities – including the one she represented – had been greatly enhanced by diversity. Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour this week, Cox said he wrote the book for those “who wanted to learn more about her – people who felt she stood for something.” “Her sense of our country and the time that we’re living in, where I think we spend a lot of time talking about diversity and difference and we’re not very good actually at talking about the things that bind us together,” Cox said. Related article Jo Cox killing: Thomas Mair guilty of murdering British politician He also spoke of a more personal bond he shares with his young children who, he says, carry “Jo’s spirit.” In the book, Cox writes about one of the toughest decisions he ever had to make: whether to let the children see their mother one last time at the morgue. “Seeing Jo’s body was an important part of them understanding and grieving,” Cox told CNN. “When you’re that little, death is quite a hard thing to conceive of and conceptualize.  You have to be quite brutal, brutally honest so that they do understand what has happened. “I think seeing their mom, and clearly knowing that life wasn’t there anymore, helped them move to that next stage,” he said. Cox also tells of his surprise when then-US President Barack Obama called just days after Jo’s death, to offer his sympathy, and to invite him and the children to the White House. Before she became an MP, Jo had volunteered on Obama’s election campaign. Related article How tragedy propelled a former actor into politics Now Cox has channeled Jo’s ethos and dedication to public service by organizing a movement he’s called “The Great Get Together” to share her “More in Common” philosophy. Across the UK this weekend, hundreds of community events have been planned for Britons to “share food with their neighbors, and to celebrate the things that bind us together.” The get together, supported by politicians and celebrities including chef Jamie Oliver, aims to bring cheer to a country that has suffered a string of terror attacks, a brutal election campaign and, most recently, a catastrophic fire in a housing estate in West London. “We need even more so after Manchester (terror attack) and after London (terror attack) and after the election, after the referendum, just to say, let’s talk about those things that we have in common. I think it’s overdue,” Cox said. CNN’s Kara Fox contributed to this report.


Haley arrived in Ethiopia Monday for talks with Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and African Union officials Haley will also travel to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo Warning that Africa’s violence political chaos and humanitarian disasters could metastasize into larger security threats to the United States, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley began a diplomatic mission to help solve two of Africa’s most brutal conflicts. Haley arrived in Ethiopia Monday for talks with Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and African Union officials. After the meetings, Haley said she hoped this was the beginning of “a stronger relationship” with the AU and Washington’s partners in Africa. “The United States very much sees Africa as a very important part of the world. We see great opportunities in Africa, we see challenges in Africa, but we want to support and help in those situations,” she said. “Most importantly we want to see how we can partner together, whether that is through economic development, whether it is through strategic practices, whether it’s through political solutions.” Haley will also travel to South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo in one of the first visits to the continent by a senior member of the Trump administration. Related article Nikki Haley: This is why the President is sending me to Africa President Donald Trump has said little about Africa since taking office but the killing of four US soldiers during an ambush by ISIS affiliated fighters in Niger earlier this month has focused attention on Washington’s expanded military presence and counter-terrorism operations against militants in Africa. “Throughout the world, we have seen that desperate situations can lead to dangerous results,” Haley wrote in an op-ed for CNN published before she left for Africa. “For this reason, President Donald Trump recently asked me to travel to the region to get a first-hand picture of what can be done.” After her meetings, Haley warned that left unresolved Africa’s conflicts could leave a vacuum that “becomes a breeding ground for extremist groups,” citing the conflict in South Sudan. Related article Yes, of course Nikki Haley is looking at running for president During a lunch with nine Africa leaders last month on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Trump announced he was dispatching Haley to South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo to help broker peace efforts. Millions of people in both countries have been displaced by violence and South Sudan has been plagued by famine. Haley said she would be deliver a blunt message to South Sudanese President Salva Kiir and Congolese President Joseph Kabila “that their governments need to stop making the work of aid workers and peacekeepers more difficult.” The Trump administration has signaled it is reviewing its relationship with Kiir. The US supported Kir’s rise to power in 2011 when, after decades of conflict, the nation won independence from neighboring Sudan. The country spiraled into civil war in 2013 when Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, fired his deputy Riek Machar, a Nuer. The conflict, marked by brutal attacks on civilians, has produced Africa’s largest refugee crisis, with four million people, one third of the population, displaced from their homes. Related article Top US general reveals new info on Niger ambush The US is the biggest donor to the UN led humanitarian effort in South Sudan, spending about $2.7 billion since 2013. As many people have been displaced in DRC, where Haley has accused President Kabila of “predatory behavior” against his own people. His term expired in December 2016, yet he refuses to step down. South Sudan and the DRC are home to the most expensive UN peacekeeping missions, costing more than $1 billion annually. The US is the biggest contributor to UN peacekeeping, though Haley has focused on cutting costs of UN peacekeeping since taking office. She pledged in her op-ed to take a critical look at the UN operations in both countries. Related article South Sudan Fast Facts Diplomats and experts hope Haley’s visit will shed more light on the Trump administration’s strategy towards the continent which many analysts argue is incoherent. “The administration has no clear Africa policy whatsoever,” says J. Stephen Morrison, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a leading voice on Africa policy “The only thing that has any coherence is the military and special ops dimensions. That is where the center of action is, that is where the resources are and where the main debates are happening.” Critics have also pointed to the Trump’s proposed cuts to aid for Africa. Haley signaled the Trump administration had a broader view toward Africa. “The United States has many interests in these war-torn African countries. Our interests are certainly humanitarian, but they are also economic and strategic,” she wrote for CNN. During his lunch with African leaders, Trump hailed the continent’s “tremendous business potential, saying “I have so many friends going to your countries trying to get rich.” But he also acknowledged the threats from extremist groups, such as al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS and numerous al Qaeda affiliates. “The United States is proud to work with you to eradicate terrorist safe havens,” he said. “And a number of you have told me … that we’ve been doing a very good job over the last six or seven months in particular.” Following the ambush in Niger, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned last week that “the war is headed to Africa.” “This war is getting hot in places that it’s been cool, and we’ve got to go where the enemy takes us,” Graham told reporters. “It’s beginning to morph.”


Here’s what you might have missed on CNN today: – Police continue to uncover details about Stephen Paddock, a man who was so diligent about maintaining his privacy that it drew the attention of neighbors. Investigators found 50 pounds of explosives and 1,600 rounds of ammunition in the shooter’s car in the hotel parking lot, but his motive still remains elusive.– These 10 survivors recount their six hours of hell. – House Republicans are weighing whether to pass a ban on bump-fire stocks – devices that make semi-automatic weapons fire more rapidly, like the ones used by the Las Vegas shooter. President Trump said he is open to considering a ban. On Thursday afternoon, the NRA called for a review on whether bump-fire stocks should be subject to additional regulations. – Trump plans to “decertify” the Iran nuclear deal next week, according to two senior US officials. – The Nobel Prize in Literature has been awarded to British writer Kazuo Ishiguro, who is known for “The Remains of the Day” and “Never Let Me Go.”– Three US Green Berets were killed and two others wounded in Niger after a US-Nigerien patrol was attacked on Wednesday, US officials told CNN. – Tropical Storm Nate is the latest storm threat, and it could head to the central US Gulf Coast over the weekend. Here’s what to still expect from hurricane season this year.– Why do women cheat on their husbands? – Netflix n’ chill just got more expensive.

Trump's plan to decertify the Iran nuclear deal


Editor’s Note: John McTernan is a former speechwriter for ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and ex-communications director to former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. John McTernan: Politicians must take Donald Trump seriously, not literally But Europeans should not fear the President-elect, McTernan says “We need to talk about Donald.” That was the message that flashed across Europe the day after the election as the continent awoke to President-elect Donald Trump. Many politicians had invested heavily – too heavily  for diplomatic comfort – in a Hillary Clinton victory. The UK House of Commons was the most egregious, with its debate about banning Trump from entering the country. I wonder how many of these lawmakers would want to repeat exactly what they said now. Or more importantly, how many would still decline a meeting with President Donald Trump on an issue that affected their constituents? Related article Related: Trump win shocks world of politics The liberal, Western mainstream that has dominated politics since the fall of the Berlin Wall is facing a threat that as recently 12 months ago seemed, at worst, far-fetched. This assault on liberal, globalist policies is being felt acutely in Europe. In part, this is because of the continent’s recent history: The European project that healed Europe’s wounds after World War II, after all, is loosely based on the premise that nations who cooperate economically with one another are less likely to launch wars on their neighbors. It’s only natural that populist insurgency makes Europeans feel squeamish. But it is also being met with such anguish because of the current political climate on the continent: Britain voted for Brexit; nationalists are surging in France, Germany and Italy; the eurozone is staring down the Greek barrel once again. The first and by far the most important thing that liberal European politicians must do is take Trump seriously. Not just in the formal sense – politics is about power and European leaders get that Trump will be the commander in chief and the leader of the free world. But more significantly, they must take him seriously as a politician. There is a very simple corrective to the European disdain for Trump. The possibility of his election was massively discounted. In part, this was because the liberal elite committed the cardinal sin of public life: They believed that what they hoped would happen would actually happen. Related article Related: What Trump has said about the world But the error in judgment was a far more profound mistake. The European political elite took Trump literally but not seriously. They heard his words, and many rushed to judgment, missing the electoral appeal that propelled him to a narrow victory. Trump voters and supporters did the opposite to the elite: They took him seriously, not literally. They heard him say the system was rigged, that he would build a wall, ban Muslims from entering the United States, bring jobs home from abroad and many other things. And they knew what it meant was: “I feel your pain. … I get you. … I’m on your side. … I got your back.” There is a lesson there for political elites looking at challenge from insurgent politicians of all kinds – from Nigel Farage in Britain, to “Beppe” Grillo in Italy and Marine Le Pen in France: think like a voter. What if you took them seriously, but not literally? Mario Cuomo famously said: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” Too many political professionals and commentators implicitly believe that this only applies to progressive or centrist politicians. It applies to populists, too. That, though, is ultimately a political challenge. What to do with Trump diplomatically? The answer is breathtakingly simple, though far from easy: Try to think like him. First, he is a deal-maker. So what is the deal he will want to do? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, is dead, but it was probably DOA. The bad news for Europe is that the deal that Americans – including Trump supporters want – is with the Anglosphere. Good news for Brexit Britain. Another European fear is about Trump’s commitment to NATO – something President Barack Obama is currently at pains to try to calm the nerves of US friends over. Related article Related: Obama talks Trump in Europe Well, there should be some honesty here. Trump said in public what many in defense circles say privately: Many NATO countries don’t pull their weight and don’t meet the target of defense spending being 2% of gross domestic product. The United States has long felt it shoulders a disproportionate burden – and with the UK renewing its Trident nuclear program, that is a complaint that can fairly be made by Brits, too. The invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty is dependent on the consent and willingness of the population of NATO members to consent to the deployment of their forces. That, ultimately, is a political challenge. Europe’s best defense against Vladimir Putin is not turning away from the United States, but renewing the commitment to NATO and mutual defense, country by country. Finally, Europeans should not be scared of Trump: He can’t afford to fail. He spent $30 million of his own money, and he has become a global brand. (Any corporation would be overjoyed to build global recognition with that small an outlay.) Without a doubt, Trump plans to have a career post-politics, and he doesn’t want to tarnish his brand. Whatever the rhetoric, he will be looking for a deal and achievements. Don’t take him literally; do take him seriously.


Hangars can accommodate combat aircraft or surveillance planes Experts say the new hangars and radar could help China establish an Air Defense Zone Dozens of aircraft hangars and high-end radar capabilities on China’s man-made islands in the South China Sea are almost operational, according to new satellite imagery released by a US-based think tank. The new facilities will further establish China’s military dominance over the highly contested region, experts told CNN, and could help China establish a controversial Air Defense Identification Zone in the area. Images released by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, AMTI, taken in early March, show nearly completed defense infrastructure on three of China’s largest artificial islands in the disputed Spratly chain: Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs. Each of the islands has new aircraft hangers, capable of holding 24 military aircraft, as well as several larger hangars that can hold bombers or surveillance planes. Though completion of these facilities in early 2017 was expected, the question remains: Where does China go from here? “I mean, you don’t build facilities like that and then not use them,” Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Yusof Ishak Institute, told CNN. South China Sea: What’s at stake A Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman said Tuesday she wasn’t aware of the report’s details but reiterated the Spratly Islands were Chinese territory. “Whether we decide to deploy or not deploy relevant military equipment, it is within our scope of sovereignty. It’s our right to self-defense and self-preservation as recognized by international law,” Hua Chunying said. Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs are the largest of seven artificial islands built by China in the Spratlys. China claims the majority of the South China Sea as its territory, despite overlapping claims by a number of other Southeast Asian countries, including the Philippines and Vietnam. Construction of major infrastructure on the Subi, Mischief & Fiery Cross Reefs in the #SouthChinaSea nearly complete https://t.co/OFQwmfwBgS pic.twitter.com/0wQHa9TgP1 Four bigger hangars have already been completed on Subi Reef, AMTI said, as well as another four on Fiery Cross Reef. Hangars to accommodate five larger planes, such as bombers, were in the final stages of construction on Mischief Reef. “China’s three military bases in the Spratlys and another on Woody Island in the Paracels will allow Chinese military aircraft to operate over nearly the entire South China Sea,” AMTI said in a statement. In addition to the hangars, new radar domes are in various stages of construction on each artificial island, about three arrays on each reef. Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief reefs now all also have shelters for mobile missiles launchers, according to AMTI. The establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone, dubbed ADIZ, in the South China Sea has long been considered a possibility by analysts, especially in the wake of July’s international court decision against China’s maritime claims. China declared its East China Sea ADIZ in November 2013, antagonizing Japan and the United States, who both said they didn’t recognize it. A similar zone in the South China Sea could rapidly increase tensions in the region, experts said. “The worry has to be that if China bases its military aircraft (in the South China Sea), they could fly up and challenge anyone’s military aircraft or civilian aircraft if they wanted to,” said Carl Thayer, regional security analyst and emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales. China had very rarely enforced its previous ADIZ, and any new zone in the south sea would start out as mostly “symbolic,” Storey said. “And the US will ignore it as it did with the East China Sea ADIZ,” he said. “The interesting question is really how the Southeast Asian states will respond.” Though the infrastructure is almost completed, no military aircraft has been deployed to the islands yet, Thayer and Storey said. Related video US starts 'routine' patrols in South China Sea China’s next step would be to very slowly deploy planes to the artificial islands to gauge the local and US response, Thayer said. “What China’s going to do is habituate,” he said. “You land one there, and then you fly it out, report it in the state media and see what the reaction is.” “Then you add two or three or four, land one and repair it, see what the response is,” he said. South China Sea tensions generally had waned in the past nine months, since Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte took power and sought a closer relationship with China, Storey said. If China deploys aircraft, “there will be pro forma protests from certain countries, Vietnam in particular. There will be grumbling from certain ASEAN members,” he said, referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. “Then, over a period of time, this will become the norm.”

China's military presence in the South China Sea


ISIS releases 37-minute audio message critical of Donald Trump and US "You (America) are bankrupt and the signs of your demise are evident to every eye," it says Islamist terror group ISIS has unleashed contempt on both the United States and President Donald Trump in a new audio message, calling the latter a “foolish idiot.” ISIS spokesman Abu Hasan al-Muhajir narrates the roughly 37-minute message, which was released Tuesday. “You (America) are bankrupt and the signs of your demise are evident to every eye,” Muhajir says. “There is no clearer sign of you being ruled by a foolish idiot who does not know what Levant or Iraq or Islam is, who continue(s) his hallucination to express his animosity and war against it (Islam).” The message was distributed via social media by ISIS supporters. It isn’t the first time a terror group has directed insults at Trump since his January inauguration. In February, the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula taunted the new President after a raid on an al Qaeda compound in Yemen. In that audio message, AQAP leader Qassim al-Rimi condemned the January 29 raid, saying: “The new fool of the White House received a painful slap across his face.” A US military review found that up to 12 civilians and 14 enemy fighters died in the Yemen raid. A Navy SEAL, Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, also was killed, and three other SEALs were injured, the US military said.


Mahdi Hashi conspired to provide material support to the terrorist organization al-Shabaab Hashi, 26, was sentenced by a federal judge to nine years in prison Mahdi Hashi, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab, was sentenced Friday to nine years in prison, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Hashi, 26, had traveled from Britain to his native Somalia to join the Somali group that the United States designated as a foreign terrorist organization in March 2008, the U.S. attorney’s office said in a statement. “This defendant left his family and his adopted home in the United Kingdom behind so he could offer himself in support of al-Shabaab, a violent terrorist organization that has demonstrated its capabilities and motives in numerous terrorist attacks and that has publicly called for attacks against the United States,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Capers. Al-Shabaab wants to turn Somalia into a fundamentalist Islamic state, according to the experts. The group has been blamed for attacks in Somalia that have killed international aid workers, journalists, civilian leaders and African Union peacekeepers. It has a history of striking abroad. Related video Terror suspect 'kidnapped' by U.S. In Somalia, Hashi was affiliated with American jihadist Omar Hamami, his band of American fighters and others associated with Al-Shabaab’s suicide bomber program, according to federal prosecutors. Hamami, who built a following in militant circles in the West for his idiosyncratic jihadist rap videos and had a U.S. bounty on his head, was among two notable jihadists reportedly killed in Somalia in 2013. What is Al-Shabaab? Capers said the prison term “sounds a warning to others who offer support to terrorist groups that pose a threat to the United States and our allies around the world.” Between December 2009 and August 2012, Hashi conspired to support the group before he was apprehended by local authorities in East Africa, according to the statement. He was deported to New York for prosecution in November 2012. Hashi and two co-defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges in May 2015, according to federal prosecutors. They said Hashi was among the foreign fighters recruited by Al-Shabaab to have lived, trained and fought alongside other native Somali fighters. The foreigners became the face of Al-Shabaab’s fundraising and propaganda efforts and were more easily able to cross international borders to carry out terror operations, according to the statement. Hashi moved to Britain with his family as a 6-year-old, fleeing the civil war in Somalia, his father told CNN in 2013. He grew up in London. When he turned 16, Britain’s MI5 secret service asked Hashi to become a spy, willingly or not, according to his father, Mohamad Hashi. Mahdi Hashi filed an official complaint and his local lawmaker met with MI5 representatives. But the younger Hashi returned to Somalia when the pressure persisted, according to his family. “He was being harassed all the time,” his father told CNN. Mahdi Hashi traveled to Egypt and Syria as a teenager. Then, in 2010, his family said, Hashi returned to Mogadishu. He got married and had a child. Hashi’s British citizenship was stripped from him shortly before he was put on a plane to the United States in 2012. CNN’s Atika Shubert contributed to this report.