usatoday--2020-01-09--Fact check: Trump discusses escalation of tensions with Iran in televised speech

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump used a televised address Wednesday to warn Tehran of further provocations after it launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles on two bases in Iraq where American troops are stationed .
But he also noted there were no American or Iraqi casualties as a result of the attacks , which Iranian officials said were in response to last week 's U.S. drone strike that killed Iran 's top military commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani .
Trump outlined what he said were the causes of the sharp escalation between the two countries and signaled he was open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president 's assertions : What he said : Trump said hostilities with Iran substantially increased when the U.S. joined with five other nations to sign an agreement that eased sanctions with Iran in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear program .
“ Iran 's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 , '' he said .
Context : Trump promised during his 2016 campaign to scrap the nuclear agreement with Iran , saying it was too lenient because the limits on Tehran 's enrichment were temporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development of its missile program .
While Trump tied the escalation of tensions to the deal negotiated under President Barack Obama , a series of major provocations occurred after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2018 .
Those included attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz last year and the downing of a U.S. drone , which Iran said had violated its airspace .
Critics of the Iran deal have said Tehran used the money it received as part of the agreement to finance terrorism in the Middle East .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Secretary of State John Kerry , acknowledged the possibility that Iran might use some of the money realized through sanctions relief to fund terrorist groups .
But Tehran 's funding of militant groups was ongoing years before the deal was reached .
Trump also misstated when the Iranian nuclear agreement was signed .
Although an interim deal was signed in 2013 , the broad multilateral agreement – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – was signed two years later in 2015 .
Attack on bases : What we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq What happens next ?
Iran 's assault was the most aggressive in decades What he said : “ Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism.
” Context : In a November 2019 report , the State Department lists four “ state sponsors ” of terrorism – official governments that support acts of international terrorism : North Korea , Iran , Sudan and Syria .
But it singles out Iran as the worst offender .
“ Iran remains the world ’ s worst state sponsor of terrorism , ” concluded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review of 2018 data and activities .
“ The regime has spent nearly one billion dollars per year to support terrorist groups that serve as its proxies and expand its malign influence across the globe .
Tehran has funded international terrorist groups such as Hizballah , Hamas , and Palestinian Islamic Jihad .
It also has engaged in its own terrorist plotting around the world , particularly in Europe.
” But experts have raised questions about labeling Iran as the worst state sponsor of terrorism .
And Trump has not always put Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to terrorism .
In his 2011 book , Trump called Saudi Arabia “ the world ’ s biggest funder of terrorism .
Saudi Arabia funnels our petrodollars , our very own money , to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people.
” Indeed , terrorism experts note that in the Sept. 11 , 2001 , attack on the United States , 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and the kingdom has been a source of terrorism financing for years .
“ Saudi Arabia ’ s society was a place where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and through charities , ” the 9/11 Commission Report states .
“ It was the society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers.
” The Saudi government has taken steps since 9/11 to prevent money laundering and other crimes that enable terrorism financing , but serious gaps remain , according to a 2018 report by the Financial Action Task Force , an inter-governmental body .
What he said : After suggesting relations began fraying with Iran on Obama 's watch with the signing of the nuclear deal , Trump suggested his predecessor gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were given $ 150 billion , not to mention $ 1.8 billion in cash .
Instead of saying ‘ thank you ’ to the United States , they chanted 'Death to America . '
” Trump went further to claim : `` The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration . ''
Context : Trump has cited both figures in the past to make the case that the Obama administration gave Iran a gift of billions of dollars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed a multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in 2015 , Iran was allowed access to its own assets , which had been frozen .
The U.S. Treasury or other countries did not give Iran $ 150 billion .
Rather , Iran was allowed to gain access to its own money .
As for the $ 1.8 billion , Iran did get a payment of roughly that amount from the U.S. Treasury .
But that was to pay an old IOU , according to the Associated Press .
In the 1970s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured .
After the nuclear deal , the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the matter , with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $ 400 million principal along with about $ 1.3 billion in interest .
The $ 400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane .
The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later .
Susan Rice , a national security adviser under the Obama administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran had ballistic missile technology before the deal was reached .
“ Iran has had these sophisticated missiles , they 've been developing their capacity for many many years .
To say that that money funded the attack on our personnel and on our base is just the most disgraceful kind of lie , of the sort that unfortunately President Trump tells every day , '' she told MSNBC .
More : What you need to know about rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran after Soleimani death What he said : Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration is spending on the military , and he did so again during his remarks about Iran on Wednesday .
“ The American military has been completely rebuilt under my administration , at a cost of $ 2.5 trillion .
U.S. Armed Forces are stronger than ever before.
” Context : Trump has freed up additional money for the military as the White House and Congress have brokered budget agreements in recent years to roll back deep sequestration cuts to Defense and non-Defense spending .
However , the president has often overstated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a military budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , said Trump ’ s claim of spending more than $ 2 trillion on military equipment over the last three years is incorrect .
The Pentagon bought less than half a trillion in equipment over that period , according to Harrison .
Personnel costs , operations and research and development account for much of the remaining balance .
What he said : “ In recent months alone , Iran has seized ships in international waters , fired an unprovoked strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two U.S. drones.
” Context : A single U.S. military surveillance drone was downed by Iran 's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps ( IRGC ) in June 2019 as it was flying over the Strait of Hormuz , a vital chokepoint for transporting oil .
The IRGC said the aircraft had violated Iranian airspace , and that the incident sent a `` clear message to America . ''
However , the Pentagon said the drone was over international waters at the time is was shot down .
At the time , in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran made a very big mistake ! ''
A month later the US had shot down an Iranian drone that was menacing a US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf .
What he said : The Trump administration has justified the U.S. strike last week killing Soleimani by saying the Iranian general was planning additional attacks in Iraq against U.S. troops .
“ In recent days , he was planning new attacks on American targets , ” Trump said in his remarks Wednesday .
“ But we stopped him.
” Context : Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing ?
It ’ s unclear .
Trump administration officials have not offered detailed information in public about the timing or extent of the plots by Soleimani that prompted the order .
Soleimani has been linked to sophisticated roadside bomb attacks that killed hundreds of U.S. troops in the Iraq war and more recently rocket fire that killed an American contractor on Dec. 27 .
Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Tuesday made the most definitive statement when he told reporters that the attacks Soleimani was planning were likely days , not weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exquisite ” intelligence about Soleimani ’ s plans to kill American personnel .
Some Democratic members of Congress , including Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , have said the Trump administration has failed to offer tangible evidence that Soleimani ’ s attacks were imminent .
Assassination ?
Legal debate rages as Iran retaliates against US for Soleimani killing What he said : Soleimani `` trained terrorist armies , including Hezbollah , launching terrorist strikes against civilian targets.
” And , “ he orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quds Force , an elite military branch of Iran 's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps , Soleimani directed pro-Iranian , non-state groups or proxies from Lebanon to Yemen .
At the time of his death , he was managing and mobilizing militias in Iraq , including groups responsible for a recent siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad .
Lebanon 's Iran-allied Hezbollah movement is one of the proxies Soleimani had close ties with , including its leader Hassan Nasrallah , who urged Iran after Soleimani 's death to target the U.S. military presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designated as a terrorist organization by a large section of the international community .
What he said : “ Iran ’ s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed ... .
Instead of saying ‘ thank you ’ to the United States , they chanted ‘ death to America.
’ In fact , they chanted ‘ death to America ’ the day the agreement was signed.
” Context : As a slogan , `` Death to America '' has been a staple of Iranian political discourse since the Islamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regularly be heard at large Friday prayer services in Tehran and across the country .
It can frequently be heard at pro-government demonstrations , sessions in parliament , official ceremonies and at meetings with current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei .
Across Tehran , large paintings and billboards can be seen that display fiery anti-American messages and portraits .
What he said : “ We are now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world .
We are independent , and we do not need Middle East oil.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world ’ s top producer of oil and natural gas , according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
The U.S. increased petroleum and natural gas production by 16 % and 18 % , respectively , in 2018 , notching a new production record , the agency announced in August .
Petroleum production includes crude oil and lease condensate , natural gas plant liquids and bitumen .
But the U.S. is not completely free of importing Middle East oil , as Trump claimed , since the U.S. still imports it .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vow to avoid conflict to an order to kill Iran general

Courtney Subramanian, John Fritze, Michael Collins and Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

Fact check: Trump discusses escalation of tensions with Iran in televised speech
Show Caption Hide Caption Are we really ready for a World War III? Fears are mounting around the world following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani - but is World War 3 about to happen? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump used a televised address Wednesday to warn Tehran of further provocations after it launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles on two bases in Iraq where American troops are stationed.
But he also noted there were no American or Iraqi casualties as a result of the attacks, which Iranian officials said were in response to last week's U.S. drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Trump outlined what he said were the causes of the sharp escalation between the two countries and signaled he was open to dialogue. USA TODAY has fact-checked the president's assertions:
Hostilities began when?
What he said: Trump said hostilities with Iran substantially increased when the U.S. joined with five other nations to sign an agreement that eased sanctions with Iran in exchange for Tehran curbing its nuclear program.
“Iran's hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013," he said.
Context: Trump promised during his 2016 campaign to scrap the nuclear agreement with Iran, saying it was too lenient because the limits on Tehran's enrichment were temporary and there were insufficient prohibitions on the development of its missile program.
While Trump tied the escalation of tensions to the deal negotiated under President Barack Obama, a series of major provocations occurred after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2018. Those included attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz last year and the downing of a U.S. drone, which Iran said had violated its airspace.
Critics of the Iran deal have said Tehran used the money it received as part of the agreement to finance terrorism in the Middle East. At the time, Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, acknowledged the possibility that Iran might use some of the money realized through sanctions relief to fund terrorist groups. But Tehran's funding of militant groups was ongoing years before the deal was reached.
Trump also misstated when the Iranian nuclear agreement was signed. Although an interim deal was signed in 2013, the broad multilateral agreement – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – was signed two years later in 2015.
Attack on bases: What we know about the assessment of damage to bases in Iraq
What happens next? Iran's assault was the most aggressive in decades
Does Iran sponsor terrorism?
What he said: “Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism.”
Context: In a November 2019 report, the State Department lists four “state sponsors” of terrorism – official governments that support acts of international terrorism: North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
But it singles out Iran as the worst offender.
“Iran remains the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism,” concluded the State Department report, which is a review of 2018 data and activities. “The regime has spent nearly one billion dollars per year to support terrorist groups that serve as its proxies and expand its malign influence across the globe. Tehran has funded international terrorist groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It also has engaged in its own terrorist plotting around the world, particularly in Europe.”
But experts have raised questions about labeling Iran as the worst state sponsor of terrorism. And Trump has not always put Iran at No. 1 when it comes to terrorism.
In his 2011 book, Trump called Saudi Arabia “the world’s biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petrodollars, our very own money, to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people.”
Indeed, terrorism experts note that in the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the United States, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and the kingdom has been a source of terrorism financing for years.
“Saudi Arabia’s society was a place where al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals and through charities,” the 9/11 Commission Report states. “It was the society that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers.”
The Saudi government has taken steps since 9/11 to prevent money laundering and other crimes that enable terrorism financing, but serious gaps remain, according to a 2018 report by the Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body.
Money provisions
What he said: After suggesting relations began fraying with Iran on Obama's watch with the signing of the nuclear deal, Trump suggested his predecessor gave billions to Tehran.
"And they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying ‘thank you’ to the United States, they chanted 'Death to America.'”
Trump went further to claim: "The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration."
Context: Trump has cited both figures in the past to make the case that the Obama administration gave Iran a gift of billions of dollars. That picture is misleading.
After it signed a multinational deal to restrain its nuclear development in 2015, Iran was allowed access to its own assets, which had been frozen. The U.S. Treasury or other countries did not give Iran $150 billion. Rather, Iran was allowed to gain access to its own money.
As for the $1.8 billion, Iran did get a payment of roughly that amount from the U.S. Treasury. But that was to pay an old IOU, according to the Associated Press.
In the 1970s, Iran paid the U.S. $400 million for military equipment that was never delivered because the government was overthrown and diplomatic relations ruptured. After the nuclear deal, the U.S. and Iran announced they had settled the matter, with the U.S. agreeing to pay the $400 million principal along with about $1.3 billion in interest.
The $400 million was paid in cash and flown to Tehran on a cargo plane. The arrangement provided for the interest to be paid later.
Susan Rice, a national security adviser under the Obama administration, pointed out after Trump's speech that Iran had ballistic missile technology before the deal was reached.
“Iran has had these sophisticated missiles, they've been developing their capacity for many many years. To say that that money funded the attack on our personnel and on our base is just the most disgraceful kind of lie, of the sort that unfortunately President Trump tells every day," she told MSNBC.
More: What you need to know about rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran after Soleimani death
Military funding
What he said: Trump has often touted the amount of money his administration is spending on the military, and he did so again during his remarks about Iran on Wednesday.
“The American military has been completely rebuilt under my administration, at a cost of $2.5 trillion. U.S. Armed Forces are stronger than ever before.”
Context: Trump has freed up additional money for the military as the White House and Congress have brokered budget agreements in recent years to roll back deep sequestration cuts to Defense and non-Defense spending. However, the president has often overstated the level of investment.
Todd Harrison, a military budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Trump’s claim of spending more than $2 trillion on military equipment over the last three years is incorrect. The Pentagon bought less than half a trillion in equipment over that period, according to Harrison. Personnel costs, operations and research and development account for much of the remaining balance.
Downing of U.S. drone
What he said: “In recent months alone, Iran has seized ships in international waters, fired an unprovoked strike on Saudi Arabia, and shot down two U.S. drones.”
Context: A single U.S. military surveillance drone was downed by Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) in June 2019 as it was flying over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for transporting oil. The IRGC said the aircraft had violated Iranian airspace, and that the incident sent a "clear message to America." However, the Pentagon said the drone was over international waters at the time is was shot down.
At the time, in response to the incident, Trump tweeted: "Iran made a very big mistake!" A month later the US had shot down an Iranian drone that was menacing a US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf.
Planned attacks
What he said: The Trump administration has justified the U.S. strike last week killing Soleimani by saying the Iranian general was planning additional attacks in Iraq against U.S. troops. “In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets,” Trump said in his remarks Wednesday. “But we stopped him.”
Context: Was Soleimani planning an attack that justified his killing? It’s unclear. Trump administration officials have not offered detailed information in public about the timing or extent of the plots by Soleimani that prompted the order. Soleimani has been linked to sophisticated roadside bomb attacks that killed hundreds of U.S. troops in the Iraq war and more recently rocket fire that killed an American contractor on Dec. 27.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Tuesday made the most definitive statement when he told reporters that the attacks Soleimani was planning were likely days, not weeks, from being launched. Esper cited “exquisite” intelligence about Soleimani’s plans to kill American personnel. Some Democratic members of Congress, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, have said the Trump administration has failed to offer tangible evidence that Soleimani’s attacks were imminent.
Assassination? Legal debate rages as Iran retaliates against US for Soleimani killing
Trump: 'Saved a lot of lives' in Soleimani attack President Donald Trump defended his decision to target and kill top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, insisting his decision saved American lives. Trump also backed down from his threats to target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliates. (Jan. 7) AP
Soleimani's record
What he said: Soleimani "trained terrorist armies, including Hezbollah, launching terrorist strikes against civilian targets.” And, “he orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.”
Context: As the head of the Quds Force, an elite military branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Soleimani directed pro-Iranian, non-state groups or proxies from Lebanon to Yemen. At the time of his death, he was managing and mobilizing militias in Iraq, including groups responsible for a recent siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Lebanon's Iran-allied Hezbollah movement is one of the proxies Soleimani had close ties with, including its leader Hassan Nasrallah, who urged Iran after Soleimani's death to target the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization by a large section of the international community.
'Death to America' chant
What he said: “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed.... Instead of saying ‘thank you’ to the United States, they chanted ‘death to America.’ In fact, they chanted ‘death to America’ the day the agreement was signed.”
Context: As a slogan, "Death to America" has been a staple of Iranian political discourse since the Islamic Republic's Revolution in 1979 and can regularly be heard at large Friday prayer services in Tehran and across the country. It can frequently be heard at pro-government demonstrations, sessions in parliament, official ceremonies and at meetings with current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Across Tehran, large paintings and billboards can be seen that display fiery anti-American messages and portraits.
America leads the world in oil production
What he said: “We are now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East oil.”
Context: The United States is the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The U.S. increased petroleum and natural gas production by 16% and 18%, respectively, in 2018, notching a new production record, the agency announced in August. Petroleum production includes crude oil and lease condensate, natural gas plant liquids and bitumen. But the U.S. is not completely free of importing Middle East oil, as Trump claimed, since the U.S. still imports it.
The decision: How Trump went from a vow to avoid conflict to an order to kill Iran general
Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard, Deirdre Shesgreen and David Brinkerhoff


usatoday--2020-01-10--House votes to limit President Trump's war powers following Soleimani killing

House votes yes to limit Trump 's war powers after killing Soleimani The House passed a vote to limit President @ @ @ @ @ war against Iran after concerns following the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani .

House votes yes to limit Trump's war powers after killing Soleimani
The House passed a vote to limit President Trump's ability to wage war against Iran after concerns following the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-10--House votes to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran after Soleimani killing

WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives passed a resolution Thursday aimed at curbing President Donald Trump 's ability to wage war against Iran amid concerns about the escalation of tensions following the U.S. killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani , a top Iranian general .
Congressional Democrats have sharply criticized the Trump administration for not consulting Congress on the Soleimani strike and have accused him of recklessness in his decision-making on Iran .
“ The American people do not want war with Iran .
With the measure before us today , we are denying the president the authority to wage such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chair Eliot Engel , D-N.Y .
The vote broke down largely along partisan lines , garnering overwhelming support from Democrats , but 3 Republicans backed it and 8 Democrats voted against it .
'Wars cost ' : Veterans have a message as tensions rise with Iran The House measure 's sponsor , Rep. Elissa Slotkin , D-Mich. , called the debate over war powers a “ constitutional duty.
” “ If our loved ones are going to be sent in any protracted war , the president owes our public a conversation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying it had no teeth in curbing the president 's authority when it comes to Iran .
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , said the resolution has `` no power whatsoever '' and called the vote `` meaningless . ''
`` It will never be sent to the president , and it will never limit his constitutional authority to defend the American people , '' he said .
`` This is the type of resolution that we invite the soapbox derby to the Capitol .
McCarthy also said the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country needed to come together , arguing Democrats were using the resolution to air their “ hatred ” of the president .
The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to pass legislation to force a withdrawal when military forces are engaged in conflict outside U.S. borders , but a 1983 Supreme Court decision said acts of Congress needed to be presented to the president to be legally binding .
The resolution will now go to the Republican-controlled Senate for consideration , though it does not have to be signed by the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join with Democrats to back it .
The Senate is considering its own version of the measure to force a military withdrawal sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. Kaine ’ s version differs slightly , as it is a joint resolution , which carries the force of law , whereas the resolution passed in the House is a concurrent resolution , which does not .
But so far , at least two Senate Republicans have voiced support for the measure .
The House 's 224-194 vote in favor of the measure reflected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s powers to wage war .
Rep. Max Rose , D-N.Y. , who voted against the resolution , said he would “ refuse to play politics with questions of war and peace , ” arguing the resolution did not go far enough to check presidential war powers .
Rose wanted a repeal of the 2002 Authorization of Use of Military Force instead .
Other Democrats felt differently .
Rep. Joe Cunningham , D-S.C. , said he believed the measure would send the `` wrong message . ''
`` President Trump committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I stand behind that commitment , '' he said .
`` I do n't think Congress needs to be saying the message that we 're not with the president on that position . ''
Rep. Anthony Brindisi , D-N.Y. said his qualms with the measure laid with limiting the president 's powers .
`` I do n't want to restrict this administration or , frankly , any administration 's ability to respond to threats from Iran , '' he said .
Rep. Thomas Massie , R-Ky. , one of the few Republicans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he supported Trump but was backing the legislation because “ this vote is about exercising our constitutional authority but more importantly , our moral obligation to decide when and where our troops are going to be asked to give their lives.
” Rep. Matt Gaetz , R-Fla. , normally a staunch ally of the president , also voted for the measure .
`` It 's ludicrous to suggest we 're preventing the troops from their job by doing our job , '' he said .
Rep. Francis Rooney , the third Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure , voiced concern over the president 's strategy in the Middle East and stressed the need for `` long-term diplomacy . ''
`` I 'm not sure what the strategy is , '' he said .
`` I 'm sure that Soleimani was a super bad guy and there 's plenty of them out there .
Just start naming them . ''
In a tweet Thursday morning , President Donald Trump slammed the resolution as `` another Democrat fraud '' and `` Presidential harassment , '' adding that he hoped all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Though some Republicans argued the Trump administration does not need further congressional approval for military actions against Iran , others criticized the administration 's handling of the process .
The classified briefings given to all members of Congress on Wednesday left lawmakers split mostly along party lines .
Most Republicans said they were satisfied with the administration 's explanation for the Soleimani strike , and Democrats said they were `` unconvinced . ''
Coming out of one of the classified briefings , Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , called it `` the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military issue in my nine years '' in the Senate .
“ It is not acceptable , ” a furious Lee said , “ to come in and tell us that we ca n't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran .
It 's un-American .
It 's unconstitutional .
And it 's wrong .
And I hope and expect that they will show greater deference to their own limited power in the future.
” Lee and Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , said they would support Kaine ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , Trump said the United States would authorize further sanctions against Iran rather than taking military action in response to Iranian missile attacks on bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops '' Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world , '' Trump said .
In a statement released Wednesday , Pelosi said the House might consider two other pieces of legislation related to congressional war powers .
One bill , from Rep. Ro Khanna , D-Calif. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for military action against Iran without congressional approval .
The other , from Rep. Barbara Lee , D-Calif. , would repeal a 2002 authorization for military force against Iraq that administration officials cited as part of their legal justification for killing Soleimani .
Legal experts said the House resolution was likely to have more political than legal effect .
“ It ’ s a political signal , and it tells the administration , it tells the world that the United States is not unified behind these actions , ” said Steve Pomper , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crisis Group and a former State Department legal adviser .
More : Exclusive : Americans say Soleimani 's killing made US less safe , Trump 'reckless ' on Iran The resolution on the House floor was the “ use of legal tools for political effect ” that would “ force the executive branch to spend some political capital defending the actions , ” said Columbia Law Professor Matthew Waxman .
One reason House Democrats opted to use this kind of resolution , rather than the kind of binding legislation introduced by Kaine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not sign a binding piece of legislation , Pomper said .
“ Imagine a world in which you have a joint resolution that would then go to the president for signature , ” he explained .
“ He wouldn ’ t sign it , and then it would be a dead letter .
”

Nicholas Wu and Christal Hayes, USA TODAY

House votes to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran after Soleimani killing
Show Caption Hide Caption House votes yes to limit Trump's war powers after killing Soleimani The House passed a vote to limit President Trump's ability to wage war against Iran after concerns following the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani. USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives passed a resolution Thursday aimed at curbing President Donald Trump's ability to wage war against Iran amid concerns about the escalation of tensions following the U.S. killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian general.
Congressional Democrats have sharply criticized the Trump administration for not consulting Congress on the Soleimani strike and have accused him of recklessness in his decision-making on Iran.
“The American people do not want war with Iran. With the measure before us today, we are denying the president the authority to wage such a war,” Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
The vote broke down largely along partisan lines, garnering overwhelming support from Democrats, but 3 Republicans backed it and 8 Democrats voted against it.
'Wars cost': Veterans have a message as tensions rise with Iran
Iran plane crash: Justin Trudeau says intel shows Ukraine jet downed by Iranian missile
The House measure's sponsor, Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., called the debate over war powers a “constitutional duty.”
“If our loved ones are going to be sent in any protracted war, the president owes our public a conversation,” she said.
Republicans criticized the measure, saying it had no teeth in curbing the president's authority when it comes to Iran. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said the resolution has "no power whatsoever" and called the vote "meaningless."
"It will never be sent to the president, and it will never limit his constitutional authority to defend the American people," he said. "This is the type of resolution that we invite the soapbox derby to the Capitol.
McCarthy also said the bill sowed dissent at a time when the country needed to come together, arguing Democrats were using the resolution to air their “hatred” of the president.
The War Powers Act of 1973 allows Congress to pass legislation to force a withdrawal when military forces are engaged in conflict outside U.S. borders, but a 1983 Supreme Court decision said acts of Congress needed to be presented to the president to be legally binding.
The resolution will now go to the Republican-controlled Senate for consideration, though it does not have to be signed by the president. Passage would require four Republicans to join with Democrats to back it.
The Senate is considering its own version of the measure to force a military withdrawal sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
Kaine’s version differs slightly, as it is a joint resolution, which carries the force of law, whereas the resolution passed in the House is a concurrent resolution, which does not. But so far, at least two Senate Republicans have voiced support for the measure.
The House's 224-194 vote in favor of the measure reflected debates within both parties about the president’s powers to wage war.
Rep. Max Rose, D-N.Y., who voted against the resolution, said he would “refuse to play politics with questions of war and peace,” arguing the resolution did not go far enough to check presidential war powers. Rose wanted a repeal of the 2002 Authorization of Use of Military Force instead.
Other Democrats felt differently. Rep. Joe Cunningham, D-S.C., said he believed the measure would send the "wrong message."
"President Trump committed to de-escalating the situation over in Iran and I stand behind that commitment," he said. "I don't think Congress needs to be saying the message that we're not with the president on that position."
Rep. Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y. said his qualms with the measure laid with limiting the president's powers. "I don't want to restrict this administration or, frankly, any administration's ability to respond to threats from Iran," he said.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of the few Republicans to vote with Democrats on the measure, said he supported Trump but was backing the legislation because “this vote is about exercising our constitutional authority but more importantly, our moral obligation to decide when and where our troops are going to be asked to give their lives.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., normally a staunch ally of the president, also voted for the measure.
"It's ludicrous to suggest we're preventing the troops from their job by doing our job," he said.
Rep. Francis Rooney, the third Republican who voted with Democrats in favor of the measure, voiced concern over the president's strategy in the Middle East and stressed the need for "long-term diplomacy."
"I'm not sure what the strategy is," he said. "I'm sure that Soleimani was a super bad guy and there's plenty of them out there. Just start naming them."
In a tweet Thursday morning, President Donald Trump slammed the resolution as "another Democrat fraud" and "Presidential harassment," adding that he hoped all congressional Republicans would vote against it.
Though some Republicans argued the Trump administration does not need further congressional approval for military actions against Iran, others criticized the administration's handling of the process.
The classified briefings given to all members of Congress on Wednesday left lawmakers split mostly along party lines. Most Republicans said they were satisfied with the administration's explanation for the Soleimani strike, and Democrats said they were "unconvinced."
Coming out of one of the classified briefings, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, called it "the worst briefing I’ve had on a military issue in my nine years" in the Senate.
“It is not acceptable,” a furious Lee said, “to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional. And it's wrong. And I hope and expect that they will show greater deference to their own limited power in the future.”
Lee and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said they would support Kaine’s war powers measure.
In an address Wednesday, Trump said the United States would authorize further sanctions against Iran rather than taking military action in response to Iranian missile attacks on bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops
"Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," Trump said.
In a statement released Wednesday, Pelosi said the House might consider two other pieces of legislation related to congressional war powers. One bill, from Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., would bar the use of funds for military action against Iran without congressional approval.
The other, from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., would repeal a 2002 authorization for military force against Iraq that administration officials cited as part of their legal justification for killing Soleimani.
Legal experts said the House resolution was likely to have more political than legal effect.
“It’s a political signal, and it tells the administration, it tells the world that the United States is not unified behind these actions,” said Steve Pomper, senior director for policy at the International Crisis Group and a former State Department legal adviser.
More: Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran
The resolution on the House floor was the “use of legal tools for political effect” that would “force the executive branch to spend some political capital defending the actions,” said Columbia Law Professor Matthew Waxman.
One reason House Democrats opted to use this kind of resolution, rather than the kind of binding legislation introduced by Kaine, in the Senate, is that Trump would not sign a binding piece of legislation, Pomper said.
“Imagine a world in which you have a joint resolution that would then go to the president for signature,” he explained. “He wouldn’t sign it, and then it would be a dead letter.”
Are we really ready for a World War III? Fears are mounting around the world following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani - but is World War 3 about to happen? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
Contributing: Deirdre Shesgreen


usatoday--2020-01-10--Iran war powers resolution passes the House, but what does it mean?

Iran war powers resolution passes the House , but what does it mean ?
Iran news : the House passed @ @ @ @ @ rein in the president 's powers , but what does such a non-binding vote mean @

Iran war powers resolution passes the House, but what does it mean?
Iran news: the House passed a war powers resolution to rein in the president's powers, but what does such a non-binding vote mean?
Hannah Gaber, USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-10--'We were ready.' Trump signals at Ohio rally that Soleimani strike will be 2020 issue

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump touted his decision to order the killing of Qasem Soleimani at a campaign rally in Ohio on Thursday , describing the Iranian general as a `` sadistic mass murderer '' and signaling the confrontation will play into his reelection campaign .
Days after a crisis with Iran threatened to upend his presidency and drag the U.S. into another Middle East war , Trump spoke at length about what he described as `` bold and decisive action '' to `` deliver American justice '' via a U.S. drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport that killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking very seriously at our embassies , '' Trump said .
`` We stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold . ''
The rally – Trump'sfirst of 2020 –provided the president a venue to explain the latest developments in the Middle East and the perilous relationship between the U.S. and Iran to his supporters .
Trump 's extensive remarks on Iran suggested he will use the strike on Soleimani to laud his foreign policy to voters inthis year 's election .
Trump touched on the Iranian response to Soleimani 's death , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go '' if Iran 's rocket attack inflicted additional damage or resulted in the death of U.S. soldiers stationed on the two Iraqi bases that were targeted .
Trump said Iran `` hit us with 16 missiles '' but thathe decided to stand down after he saw the relatively minor impact , which he attributed to a `` pretty good warning system . ''
`` So we did n't do anything ... Not that I wanted to , but we were ready '' he said .
`` You have no idea.Lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : House votes to limit Trump 's ability to wage war with Iran after Soleimani The crowd roared as Trump discussed the strike and blasted Democrats for attempting to curb his ability to launch strikes against Iran .
Trump 's rally came hours after the Democratic-led House passed a resolution aimed at limiting his war powers .
Democrats have criticized Trump for not consulting Congress on the Soleimani strike and have accused him of recklessness .
`` We got a call .
We heard where he was , '' Trump said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We did n't have time to call up Nancy [ Pelosi ] , who is not operating with a full deck . ''
In the aftermath of the strike against Soleimani Republicans embraced the move and praised Trump for taking action against a country that has been widely perceived as a bad actor in the Middle East .
But the president ca n't necessarily count on the issue unifying American voters ahead of the election .
Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Soleimani has made the United States less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found Thursday .
A majority of those surveyed , by 52 % -34 % , called Trump 's behavior with Iran `` reckless . ''
More : Americans say Soleimani 's killing made US less safe , Trump 'reckless ' on Iran Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport that killed Soleimani and others : 42 % supported it , 33 % opposed it ; 25 % said they did n't know what to think .
Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats ; independents were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends , not enemies , '' Trump told the rally audience .
But , he added , `` if you dare to threaten our citizens , you do so at your own grave peril . ''
Minutes after Trump took the stage his remarks were interrupted by protesters holding a banner that read : `` NO WAR . ''
The Toledo rally is one of three Trump has scheduled this month .
The others are set for Wisconsin , a critical state for his reelection effort , and New Jersey .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confrontation with Iran escalated .
Trump has raised Iran at virtually every political rally he has hosted since entering the White House in 2017 .
His remarks on one of Washington 's most challenging foes in the Middle East have generally focused on the 2015 multi-national nuclear agreement that offered sanctions relief in exchange for Iran curbing its nuclear program .
Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement in 2018 , arguing it did not do enough to curb Iran 's nuclear ambitions .
Iran and the U.S. bothmoved Wednesday to deescalate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a nine-minute address to the nation and even suggested the possibility of a diplomatic resolution to the crisis .
Iranian leaders , including foreign minister Javad Zarif described the attack as `` self-defense . ''
Iran crash : Trump says he thinks 'something very terrible happened ' to Ukraine jet Trump address : Trump , Tehran step back from war footing after Iran 's attack in Iraq Trump faced a similar test in 2017 as his rhetoric over North Korea began to boil .
Trump held an Arizona rally at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rain `` fire and fury '' on North Korea .
Trump raised the issue at that rally , though his remarks were overshadowed by his comments about the violence in Charlottesville , Va. '' What I said , that 's not strong enough , '' Trump said , referring to his `` fire and fury '' tweet .
`` Some people said it 's too strong ; it 's not strong enough .
But Kim Jong Un , I respect the fact that I believe he is starting to respect us .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The rally in Ohio also comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is poised to send impeachment articles to the Senate , which will determine whether to remove Trump from office .
Pelosi said Thursday that she would transmit those articles `` soon . ''
The Republican-led Senate is expected to acquit Trump on the charges of abusing his power and obstructing the congressional probe into his interactions with Ukraine .
Trump slammed Pelosi and other Democrats for pursuing the impeachment , arguing that the House speaker is `` not playing with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says she 'll send Senate articles of impeachment against Trump 'soon' Trump carried Ohio in the 2016 election with nearly 52 % of the vote .
By rallying in Toledo he can also draw from supporters in nearby Michigan , which he won narrowly .

John Fritze and David Jackson, USA TODAY

'We were ready.' Trump signals at Ohio rally that Soleimani strike will be 2020 issue
Show Caption Hide Caption Iran plane crash: Trump thinks 'something very terrible happened' President Donald Trump doesn’t believe mechanical failure caused a Ukrainian jet to crash in Iran and suggested “something very terrible happened.” USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump touted his decision to order the killing of Qasem Soleimani at a campaign rally in Ohio on Thursday, describing the Iranian general as a "sadistic mass murderer" and signaling the confrontation will play into his reelection campaign.
Days after a crisis with Iran threatened to upend his presidency and drag the U.S. into another Middle East war, Trump spoke at length about what he described as "bold and decisive action" to "deliver American justice" via a U.S. drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport that killed Soleimani last week.
"He was looking very seriously at our embassies," Trump said. "We stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold."
The rally – Trump's first of 2020 – provided the president a venue to explain the latest developments in the Middle East and the perilous relationship between the U.S. and Iran to his supporters. Trump's extensive remarks on Iran suggested he will use the strike on Soleimani to laud his foreign policy to voters in this year's election.
Trump touched on the Iranian response to Soleimani's death, saying the U.S. was "ready to go" if Iran's rocket attack inflicted additional damage or resulted in the death of U.S. soldiers stationed on the two Iraqi bases that were targeted. Trump said Iran "hit us with 16 missiles" but that he decided to stand down after he saw the relatively minor impact, which he attributed to a "pretty good warning system."
"So we didn't do anything...Not that I wanted to, but we were ready" he said. "You have no idea. Lot of people got very lucky."
War powers: House votes to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran after Soleimani
Are we really ready for a World War III? Fears are mounting around the world following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani - but is World War 3 about to happen? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
The crowd roared as Trump discussed the strike and blasted Democrats for attempting to curb his ability to launch strikes against Iran. Trump's rally came hours after the Democratic-led House passed a resolution aimed at limiting his war powers. Democrats have criticized Trump for not consulting Congress on the Soleimani strike and have accused him of recklessness.
"We got a call. We heard where he was," Trump said. "And we had to make a decision. We didn't have time to call up Nancy [Pelosi], who is not operating with a full deck."
In the aftermath of the strike against Soleimani Republicans embraced the move and praised Trump for taking action against a country that has been widely perceived as a bad actor in the Middle East. But the president can't necessarily count on the issue unifying American voters ahead of the election.
Americans by more than 2-1 said the killing of Soleimani has made the United States less safe, a nationwide USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll found Thursday. A majority of those surveyed, by 52%-34%, called Trump's behavior with Iran "reckless."
More: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran
Americans were divided on the wisdom of the drone strike at the Baghdad airport that killed Soleimani and others: 42% supported it, 33% opposed it; 25% said they didn't know what to think. Republicans were much more supportive than Democrats; independents were almost evenly split.
"We seek friends, not enemies," Trump told the rally audience.
But, he added, "if you dare to threaten our citizens, you do so at your own grave peril."
Minutes after Trump took the stage his remarks were interrupted by protesters holding a banner that read: "NO WAR."
The Toledo rally is one of three Trump has scheduled this month. The others are set for Wisconsin, a critical state for his reelection effort, and New Jersey. It was his first major political event since the confrontation with Iran escalated.
Trump has raised Iran at virtually every political rally he has hosted since entering the White House in 2017. His remarks on one of Washington's most challenging foes in the Middle East have generally focused on the 2015 multi-national nuclear agreement that offered sanctions relief in exchange for Iran curbing its nuclear program.
Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement in 2018, arguing it did not do enough to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Iran and the U.S. both moved Wednesday to deescalate the confrontation. Trump largely avoided saber-rattling during a nine-minute address to the nation and even suggested the possibility of a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. Iranian leaders, including foreign minister Javad Zarif described the attack as "self-defense."
Iran crash: Trump says he thinks 'something very terrible happened' to Ukraine jet
Trump address: Trump, Tehran step back from war footing after Iran's attack in Iraq
Trump faced a similar test in 2017 as his rhetoric over North Korea began to boil. Trump held an Arizona rally at the end of August just weeks after he threatened to rain "fire and fury" on North Korea. Trump raised the issue at that rally, though his remarks were overshadowed by his comments about the violence in Charlottesville, Va.
"What I said, that's not strong enough," Trump said, referring to his "fire and fury" tweet. "Some people said it's too strong; it's not strong enough. But Kim Jong Un, I respect the fact that I believe he is starting to respect us. I respect that fact very much."
The rally in Ohio also comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is poised to send impeachment articles to the Senate, which will determine whether to remove Trump from office. Pelosi said Thursday that she would transmit those articles "soon." The Republican-led Senate is expected to acquit Trump on the charges of abusing his power and obstructing the congressional probe into his interactions with Ukraine.
Trump slammed Pelosi and other Democrats for pursuing the impeachment, arguing that the House speaker is "not playing with a full deck."
More: Pelosi says she'll send Senate articles of impeachment against Trump 'soon'
More: Trump says environmental policy change would fix 'regulatory nightmare'
Trump carried Ohio in the 2016 election with nearly 52% of the vote. By rallying in Toledo he can also draw from supporters in nearby Michigan, which he won narrowly.
Contributing: Susan Page, Nicholas Wu, Christal Hayes


usatoday--2020-01-10--Nancy Pelosi seeks to 'limit the president's military actions', Iran de-escalation

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans on forcing de-escalation between President Trump and Iran with War Powers Resolution .

Nancy Pelosi seeks to 'limit the president's military actions', Iran de-escalation
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans on forcing de-escalation between President Trump and Iran with War Powers Resolution.
USA TODAY


usatoday--2020-01-10--Bernie Sanders leads the Iowa Poll for the first time, just weeks before the Iowa caucuses

DES MOINES — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders leads the Democratic field three weeks ahead of Caucus Day in Iowa — narrowly overtaking his closest competitors , who remain locked in a tight contest just behind him .
A new Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows 20 % of likely Democratic caucusgoers name Sanders as their first choice for president .
After a surge of enthusiasm that pushed Pete Buttigieg to the top of the field in November , the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor has faded , falling 9 percentage points to land behind both Sanders and U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 % ; Buttigieg , 16 % ; and former Vice President Joe Biden , 15 % .
“ There ’ s no denying that this is a good poll for Bernie Sanders .
He leads , but it ’ s not an uncontested lead , ” said pollster J. Ann Selzer , president of Selzer & Co. , which conducted the poll .
“ He ’ s got a firmer grip on his supporters than the rest of his compatriots.
” The poll of 701 likely Democratic caucusgoers was conducted Jan. 2-8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus or minus 3.7 percentage points .
Biden , Buttigieg , Sanders and Warren have remained clustered atop the Register ’ s Iowa Poll throughout the 2020 campaign cycle , though no one has definitively pulled away from the pack .
Instead , each of the top four has now led the Iowa Poll at some point this cycle as the field continues to shift .
The percentage of those who say their mind is made up about which candidate to support on caucus night has risen to 40 % — up 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves 45 % who say they could still be persuaded to support someone else and another 13 % who have not picked a favorite candidate yet .
► More : ' I am one of the undecided ' : With a month to go , many likely caucusgoers still unsure about their choice “ The caucus process is an invitation to keep an open mind , ” Selzer said , noting that the Iowa Poll produced similar numbers of undecided caucusgoers at the same point during 2016 's crowded Republican primary .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a late burst of momentum — failed to gain much ground in the January poll .
U.S. Sens .
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey both held steady : Klobuchar at 6 % and Booker at 3 % .
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang grew his support from 3 % in November to 5 % today .
Linda Ireland , a 65-year-old poll respondent from Waterloo , said Booker is her first choice , and Klobuchar is her second .
But she also likes Buttigieg and Yang .
`` I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I might move over to Amy or even Pete , '' said Ireland , a retired writer and copy editor .
The caucus process makes those second choices crucial .
After a first vote on caucus night , candidates who do n't receive at least 15 % in a precinct get dropped from contention there .
The people who initially backed a candidate who failed to earn 15 % then get to vote again for a final time .
So Ireland is considering all her choices .
`` If Pete ’ s doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one else viable in my precinct , I would go over to him .
I would probably go down the line : Klobuchar , Yang and then Pete , '' she said .
In the new poll , a slew of other contenders fell well below the 15 % viability mark .
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii , who is focusing her attention on New Hampshire , and entrepreneur Tom Steyer are at 2 % .
Steyer is holding steady in Iowa but has gained enough ground in other early states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate stage .
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , who is skipping the four early-voting states and compensating for his late entry into the race by purchasing tens of millions of dollars ’ worth of TV ads elsewhere , barely registers here .
His support fell a percentage point from 2 % to 1 % .
Support for former U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado and former U.S. Rep. John Delaney of Maryland rounded to 0 % .
Though Bennet has largely foregone competing in Iowa in the race 's closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first candidate to begin campaigning here in 2017 — has committed to a massive 40-stop RV tour of the state this month .
Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick and author Marianne Williamson , who ended her campaign after the poll was completed , were not named as a first choice for president by a single poll respondent .
'There 's just the Bernie factor' Could Sanders gain the Iowa caucuses win that eluded him in 2016 ?
Selzer said the data suggest it ’ s entirely plausible .
“ There ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Which is ( even ) stronger than we saw in the last cycle.
” Although this is the first time in his back-to-back races for president that the Vermont senator has led the Iowa Poll , his support this cycle has remained remarkably firm — a fact his campaign has worked to exploit .
Sanders ' supporters are more likely than those who support the other leading candidates to say their minds are made up ( 59 % ) , and they are “ extremely ” enthusiastic about their candidate ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Warren 's supporters describe themselves as extremely enthusiastic , and 26 % each for Biden and Buttigieg .
“ There was a thought that his support was a holdover from when he ran before and that that would evaporate , ” Selzer said .
“ It certainly has not evaporated . ''
She said Sanders is holding on to many of those who caucused for him in 2016 while also growing support among young and first-time caucusgoers .
Those are notoriously difficult groups to turn out on caucus night , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and appears to be on track to do so again .
He has retained support from 44 % of those who say they caucused for him in 2016 .
Warren earns 20 % of his former supporters .
And he leads the field with those younger than 35 , earning 36 % of their support ; Warren follows him at 20 % .
`` He ’ s someone I followed in the last primary and really liked , '' said Matthew Quick , a 25-year-old P.E .
teacher from Essex .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on education and improving teacher quality and pay stands out .
`` When he put his name in the hat in 2020 , I knew I was going to be in all the way , '' he said .
Buttigieg fades , but many still considering him Buttigieg held a commanding lead in the Register 's last Iowa Poll , in November , at 25 % — 9 percentage points ahead of Warren , his closest competitor .
But in the weeks since , he 's faced more criticism over his record , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win over voters of color , nationally .
Buttigieg fares worst among the leading candidates in the share of supporters whose minds are made up : 40 % .
That 's compared with the 59 % of Sanders ' supporters , 48 % of Warren 's and 44 % of Biden 's .
Buttigieg 's favorability ratings also have gone in the downward direction .
The share of those who say they view Buttigieg favorably has fallen 4 percentage points from November to 68 % today .
The share of those viewing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 24 % .
`` That used to be his great claim to fame : He was very likable , and there were very few who didn ’ t like him , '' Selzer said .
`` Some of that luster is lost in this poll . ''
Still , he retains a wide footprint of support in Iowa .
As he did in November , Buttigieg tallied the largest universe of potential supporters , with 60 % saying they are considering him in some capacity .
That includes the 16 % who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , the 15 % who say he is their second choice , and 29 % who are actively considering him .
That narrowly bests Warren , who is still the first or second choice or is being actively considered by 59 % of likely Democratic caucusgoers — falling from 66 % in November and a high of 71 % in September .
Biden fell 3 percentage points in this footprint measure , to 55 % , and Sanders ticked up 1 point to tie him .
Klobuchar and Yang follow with 41 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Selzer said the numbers seem to indicate a little less room for Klobuchar and Yang to grow .
“ They seem to be settled on the number they ’ re going to get , ” she said .
“ With this big of a field and with four strong top contenders , what sort of showing in the caucus would be good enough for Andrew Yang or for Amy Klobuchar to move forward ?
” Seventy-eight percent of men under age 45 say they view Yang favorably , as do 73 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar gets more favorable ratings from older likely Democratic caucusgoers , including 69 % of women age 55 and older .
Conversely , just 32 % of caucusgoers younger than 35 say they view Klobuchar favorably .
Selzer said she typically eschews the idea of political “ lanes , ” arguing that caucusgoers don ’ t approach their decisions that way .
“ But you look at these data and you kind of go , ‘ Well , these look like lanes , ’ ” she said .
Sanders and Warren are battling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg are attracting a more moderate crowd .
Higher proportions of Biden and Buttigieg supporters — 75 % and 72 % , respectively — say choosing a candidate with the superior chance of defeating Republican President Donald Trump is extremely important to them , personally .
It ’ s 54 % among Sanders supporters and 53 % among Warren supporters .
Seventy-eight percent of Biden 's supporters and 84 % of Buttigieg 's supporters say that a candidate ’ s ability to unite the country is extremely important in their choice .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sanders ' supporters and 58 % of Warren 's .
And 64 % of Biden supporters and 61 % of Buttigieg supporters say having a candidate who can bring Republicans and independents on board is extremely important .
Just 38 % of Sanders ' supporters and 46 % of Warren 's supporters feel that way .
Further , a plurality of Biden 's supporters , 29 % , say Buttigieg is their second choice ; a plurality of Sanders ' supporters , 44 % , say Warren is theirs ; and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , say Sanders is their second choice .
Buttigieg 's supporters are split on their second choices , with 20 % saying Warren and 18 % saying Biden .
“ This poll really displays the Sanders-Warren connection and the Biden-Buttigieg connection , ” Selzer said .
As the United States faces heightened tensions in the Middle East and with Iran , supporters of Biden and Buttigieg express more confidence in their ability to lead the military than the supporters of Sanders or Warren place in their candidates .
Among his own supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead the U.S. military is more of a strength than a weakness .
Just 1 % say it 's more of a weakness for the former vice president .
On the campaign trail , Biden regularly touts his foreign policy acumen , arguing he 's ready to take over the role of commander in chief on Day One .
Buttigieg , who is the only candidate polling in the top four to have served active duty in the military , also fares well : 87 % of his backers say his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and just 7 % call it a weakness .
Candidates on the issues : Find out how the 2020 presidential candidates plan to tackle health care , climate change , gun violence and more .
`` I think it ’ s good to have somebody who at least has the context of that mindset , '' said poll respondent Christina Powers , a 36-year-old stay-at-home mom from Dexter who names Buttigieg as her first choice for president .
`` You definitely have to be able to build bridges and understand the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , also , because we ’ ve been at war for half of his life , he probably understands it ’ s something that is not something to crave — that it ’ s not a good thing . ''
Even among their own supporters , Sanders and Warren struggle on this measure : 61 % of Sanders ' supporters say his ability to lead the military is a strength , and 23 % call it a weakness ; for Warren , 58 % of supporters say her ability to lead the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call it a weakness .
Sanders ' supporters are also concerned about his health .
The 78-year-old senator suffered a heart attack earlier this year , and although he has n't slowed his campaign schedule , 49 % of his supporters say his physical health is a weakness , while 37 % call it a strength .
Quick , the poll respondent and Sanders supporter , said he thinks Sanders ' age comes with experience .
But he said he worries Trump could weaponize Sanders ' age and physical health .
`` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans could try to use against him , '' Quick said .
Although Biden is nearly as old , at 77 , far fewer of his supporters — just 28 % — say his health is a weakness .
A majority , 55 % , say it 's a strength .
Warren is the other septuagenarian among the top-tier candidates .
The 70-year-old is often seen running onto stages and through events , and 86 % of her supporters say her physical health is a strength .
Buttigieg , who would be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this measure : 95 % of his supporters say his physical health is an asset , not a weakness .
► MORE ON THIS POLL : Read our methodology The Iowa Poll , conducted Jan. 2-8 , 2020 , for the Des Moines Register , CNN and Mediacom by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines , is based on telephone interviews with 3,131 registered voters in Iowa , including 701 who say they will definitely or probably attend the 2020 Democratic caucuses .
Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted randomly selected active voters from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter registration list by telephone .
The sample was supplemented with additional phone number lookups .
Interviews were administered in English .
Responses for all registered voters were adjusted by age and congressional district to reflect their proportions among active voters in the list .
Questions based on the sample of 701 voters likely to attend the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points .
Questions based on the sample of 3,131 registered voters have a maximum margin of error of plus or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology , 19 times out of 20 , the findings would not vary from the true population value by more than plus or minus 3.7 or 1.8 percentage points , respectively .
Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error .
Republishing the copyright Iowa Poll without credit to the Des Moines Register , CNN , and Mediacom is prohibited .
Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at bpfann @ dmreg.com or 515-284-8244 .
Follow her on Twitter at @ brianneDMR .
Support reporters who follow your government by becoming a subscriber .
Sign up at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal .

Brianne Pfannenstiel, Des Moines Register

Bernie Sanders leads the Iowa Poll for the first time, just weeks before Iowa caucuses
Show Caption Hide Caption Iowa caucus: Just how much influence does it have on the primary? The Iowa caucus is sure to be competitive this year. But what makes caucuses different from primaries? Just the FAQs
© Copyright 2020, Des Moines Register and Tribune Co.
DES MOINES, Iowa – Sen. Bernie Sanders leads the Democratic field three weeks ahead of Caucus Day in Iowa – narrowly overtaking his closest competitors, who remain locked in a tight contest just behind him.
A new Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows 20% of likely Democratic caucusgoers name Sanders as their first choice for president.
After a surge of enthusiasm that pushed Pete Buttigieg to the top of the field in November, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor has faded, falling 9 percentage points to land behind both Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Warren is at 17%; Buttigieg, 16%; and former Vice President Joe Biden, 15%.
“There’s no denying that this is a good poll for Bernie Sanders. He leads, but it’s not an uncontested lead,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “He’s got a firmer grip on his supporters than the rest of his compatriots.”
2020 candidates on the issues: Here's where they stand on gun violence, immigration, health care and more
The poll of 701 likely Democratic caucusgoers was done Jan. 2-8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren have remained clustered atop the Register’s Iowa Poll throughout the 2020 campaign cycle, though no one has definitively pulled away from the pack. Instead, each of the top four has now led the Iowa Poll at some point this cycle as the field continues to shift.
The percentage of those who say their mind is made up about which candidate to support on caucus night has risen to 40% – up 10 percentage points from November. Forty-five percent say they have a favorite candidate but could be persuaded to support someone else and an additional 13% have not picked a favorite candidate.
► More: 'I am one of the undecided': With a month to go, many likely caucusgoers still unsure about their choice
“The caucus process is an invitation to keep an open mind,” Selzer said, noting that the Iowa Poll produced similar numbers of undecided caucusgoers at the same point during 2016's crowded Republican primary.
Other Democratic candidates – including those banking on a late burst of momentum – failed to gain much ground in the January poll. Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey held steady, Klobuchar at 6% and Booker at 3%. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang grew his support from 3% in November to 5% today.
Linda Ireland, a 65-year-old poll respondent from Waterloo, said Booker is her first choice, and Klobuchar is her second. But she also likes Buttigieg and Yang.
"I am going to caucus for Booker, and I might move over to Amy or even Pete," said Ireland, a retired writer and copy editor.
Loading...
The caucus process makes those second choices crucial. After a first vote on caucus night, candidates who don't receive at least 15% in a precinct get dropped from contention there. The people who initially backed a candidate who failed to earn 15% then get to vote again for a final time. So Ireland is considering all her choices.
"If Pete’s doing really well, and there’s no one else viable in my precinct, I would go over to him. I would probably go down the line: Klobuchar, Yang and then Pete," she said.
In the new poll, a slew of other contenders fell well below the 15% viability mark.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is focusing her attention on New Hampshire, and entrepreneur Tom Steyer are at 2%. Steyer is holding steady in Iowa but has gained enough ground in other early states to earn a place on Tuesday's debate stage.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is skipping the four early-voting states and compensating for his late entry into the race by purchasing tens of millions of dollars’ worth of TV ads elsewhere, barely registers here. His support fell a percentage point from 2% to 1%.
Support for former Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado and former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland rounded to 0%. Though Bennet has largely foregone competing in Iowa in the race's closing weeks, Delaney – who was the first candidate to begin campaigning here in 2017 – has committed to a massive 40-stop RV tour of the state this month.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and author Marianne Williamson, who ended her campaign after the poll was completed, were not named as a first choice for president by a single poll respondent.
Difference between caucus and primary, explained The 2020 election is nearing and with that, comes the caucuses and primary elections. But what’s the difference? Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
'There's just the Bernie factor'
Could Sanders gain the Iowa caucuses win that eluded him in 2016? Selzer said the data suggest it’s entirely plausible.
“There’s just the Bernie factor,” Selzer said. “Which is (even) stronger than we saw in the last cycle.”
Although this is the first time in his back-to-back races for president that the Vermont senator has led the Iowa Poll, his support this cycle has remained remarkably firm, a fact his campaign has worked to exploit.
Sanders' supporters are more likely than those who support the other leading candidates to say their minds are made up (59%), and they are “extremely” enthusiastic about their candidate (49%). Just 32% of Warren's supporters describe themselves as extremely enthusiastic, and 26% each for Biden and Buttigieg.
“There was a thought that his support was a holdover from when he ran before and that that would evaporate,” Selzer said. “It certainly has not evaporated."
Sanders on the issues: The 2020 candidate shares his views on student debt, Medicare for all, and the Green New Deal
Loading...
She said Sanders is holding on to many of those who caucused for him in 2016 while also growing support among young and first-time caucusgoers. Those are notoriously difficult groups to turn out on caucus night, she said, but Sanders has done it before and appears to be on track to do so again.
He has retained support from 44% of those who say they caucused for him in 2016. Warren earns 20% of his former supporters.
And he leads the field with those younger than 35, earning 36% of their support; Warren follows him at 20%.
"He’s someone I followed in the last primary and really liked," said Matthew Quick, 25, a P.E. teacher from Essex. As a teacher, Quick said Sanders' focus on education and improving teacher quality and pay stands out.
"When he put his name in the hat in 2020, I knew I was going to be in all the way," he said.
Buttigieg fades, but many still considering him
Buttigieg held a commanding lead in the Register's last Iowa Poll, in November, at 25% – 9 percentage points ahead of Warren, his closest competitor. But in the weeks since, he has faced more criticism over his record, his moderate policy positions and his inability to win over voters of color nationally.
Buttigieg fares worst among the leading candidates in the share of supporters whose minds are made up: 40%. That's compared with the 59% of Sanders' supporters, 48% of Warren's and 44% of Biden's.
Buttigieg's favorability ratings also have gone in the downward direction. The share of those who say they view Buttigieg favorably has fallen 4 percentage points from November to 68% today. The share of those viewing him unfavorably has risen from 16% to 24%.
Pete Buttigieg on the issues: Here's where Buttigieg stands on gun violence, immigration, health care and more
"That used to be his great claim to fame: He was very likable, and there were very few who didn’t like him," Selzer said. "Some of that luster is lost in this poll."
Still, he retains a wide footprint of support in Iowa. As he did in November, Buttigieg tallied the largest universe of potential supporters, with 60% saying they are considering him in some capacity. That includes the 16% who name him as their first choice for president, the 15% who say he is their second choice, and 29% who are actively considering him.
That narrowly bests Warren, who is still the first or second choice or is being actively considered by 59% of likely Democratic caucusgoers – falling from 66% in November and a high of 71% in September.
Biden fell 3 percentage points in this footprint measure, to 55%, and Sanders ticked up 1 point to tie him. Klobuchar and Yang follow with 41% and 40%, respectively.
Selzer said the numbers seem to indicate a little less room for Klobuchar and Yang to grow.
“They seem to be settled on the number they’re going to get,” she said. “With this big of a field and with four strong top contenders, what sort of showing in the caucus would be good enough for Andrew Yang or for Amy Klobuchar to move forward?”
Seventy-eight percent of men under age 45 say they view Yang favorably, as do 73% of white men with a college degree.
Klobuchar gets more favorable ratings from older likely Democratic caucusgoers, including 69% of women age 55 and older. Conversely, just 32% of caucusgoers younger than 35 say they view Klobuchar favorably.
Loading...
Data show progressive, moderate 'lanes'
Selzer said she typically eschews the idea of political “lanes,” arguing that caucusgoers don’t approach their decisions that way.
“But you look at these data and you kind of go, ‘Well, these look like lanes,’ ” she said.
Sanders and Warren are battling for progressive caucusgoers, and Biden and Buttigieg are attracting a more moderate crowd.
Higher proportions of Biden and Buttigieg supporters – 75% and 72%, respectively – say choosing a candidate with the superior chance of defeating President Donald Trump is extremely important to them, personally. It’s 54% among Sanders supporters and 53% among Warren supporters.
Seventy-eight percent of Biden's supporters and 84% of Buttigieg's supporters say that a candidate’s ability to unite the country is extremely important in their choice. That factor is extremely important for 65% of Sanders' supporters and 58% of Warren's.
And 64% of Biden supporters and 61% of Buttigieg supporters say having a candidate who can bring Republicans and independents on board is extremely important. Just 38% of Sanders' supporters and 46% of Warren's supporters feel that way.
Further, a plurality of Biden's supporters, 29%, say Buttigieg is their second choice; a plurality of Sanders' supporters, 44%, say Warren is theirs; and a plurality of Warren's supporters, 31%, say Sanders is their second choice. Buttigieg's supporters are split on their second choices, with 20% saying Warren and 18% saying Biden.
“This poll really displays the Sanders-Warren connection and the Biden-Buttigieg connection,” Selzer said.
Loading...
What are candidates' strengths, weaknesses?
As the United States faces heightened tensions in the Middle East and with Iran, supporters of Biden and Buttigieg express more confidence in their ability to lead the military than the supporters of Sanders or Warren place in their candidates.
Among his own supporters, 86% say Biden's ability to lead the U.S. military is more of a strength than a weakness. Just 1% say it's more of a weakness for the former vice president. On the campaign trail, Biden regularly touts his foreign policy acumen, arguing he's ready to take over the role of commander in chief on Day One.
Buttigieg, who is the only candidate polling in the top four to have served active duty in the military, also fares well: 87% of his backers say his ability to lead the military is a strength, and just 7% call it a weakness.
Foreign policy: Here's where the 2020 candidates stand on tensions with Iran and North Korea
"I think it’s good to have somebody who at least has the context of that mindset," said poll respondent Christina Powers, a 36-year-old stay-at-home mom from Dexter who names Buttigieg as her first choice for president. "You definitely have to be able to build bridges and understand the way the military thinks. … And I think, also, because we’ve been at war for half of his life, he probably understands it’s something that is not something to crave – that it’s not a good thing."
Even among their own supporters, Sanders and Warren struggle on this measure: 61% of Sanders' supporters say his ability to lead the military is a strength, and 23% call it a weakness; for Warren, 58% of supporters say her ability to lead the military is a strength, and 29% call it a weakness.
Sanders' supporters are also concerned about his health.
The 78-year-old senator had a heart attack earlier this year, and although he hasn't slowed his campaign schedule, 49% of his supporters say his physical health is a weakness, while 37% call it a strength.
Quick, the poll respondent and Sanders supporter, said he believes Sanders' age comes with experience. But he said he worries Trump could weaponize Sanders' age and physical health.
"I feel like it’s something the Republicans could try to use against him," Quick said.
Although Biden is nearly as old, at 77, far fewer of his supporters – just 28% – say his health is a weakness. A majority, 55%, say it's a strength.
Warren is the other septuagenarian among the top-tier candidates. The 70-year-old is often seen running onto stages and through events, and 86% of her supporters say her physical health is a strength.
Buttigieg, who would be the youngest president ever elected, leads on this measure: 95% of his supporters say his physical health is an asset, not a weakness.
Loading...
Loading...
► MORE ON THIS POLL: Read our methodology
About this poll
The Iowa Poll, conducted Jan. 2-8, 2020, for the Des Moines Register, CNN and Mediacom by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 3,131 registered voters in Iowa, including 701 who say they will definitely or probably attend the 2020 Democratic caucuses.
Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted randomly selected active voters from the Iowa secretary of state’s voter registration list by telephone. The sample was supplemented with additional phone number lookups. Interviews were administered in English. Responses for all registered voters were adjusted by age and congressional district to reflect their proportions among active voters in the list.
Questions based on the sample of 701 voters likely to attend the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. Questions based on the sample of 3,131 registered voters have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the true population value by more than plus or minus 3.7 or 1.8 percentage points, respectively. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error.
Republishing the copyright Iowa Poll without credit to the Des Moines Register, CNN, and Mediacom is prohibited.
Brianne Pfannenstiel is the chief politics reporter for the Register. Reach her at bpfann@dmreg.com or 515-284-8244. Follow her on Twitter at @brianneDMR.
Support reporters who follow your government by becoming a subscriber. Sign up at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal.


usatoday--2020-01-10--We asked presidential candidates about their policy on Iran. Here's what they said

I ’ m not sure if there is a workable deal to be had today .
But , as president @ @ @ @ @ means I have to ensure that nuclear weapons do not spread .

Donald Trump faces sweeping charges in Georgia indictment: recap
A grand jury in Georgia indicted Donald Trump Monday, accusing the former president and his allies of trying to steal President Joe Biden’s win.


usatoday--2020-01-10--Gov. Greg Abbott says Texas won't accept refugees in 2020

Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott said Friday that the state won ’ t participate in the federal refugee resettlement program this year , citing strained state resources in dealing with a “ broken federal immigration system.
” The decision makes Texas the first state to decline refugee resettlement , allowed under a new rule created by the Trump administration .
Abbott had faced pressure to remain in the program from leaders of the state ’ s largest cities , refugee advocates and evangelical Christians .
State Democrats rebuked Abbott over the decision ; a few Republicans praised him .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pompeo , Abbott said he “ can not consent to initial refugee resettlement ” in 2020 .
`` This decision does not deny any refugee access to the United States .
Nor does it preclude a refugee from later coming to Texas after initially settling in another state , '' Abbott wrote .
More : Trump administration to slash admission of refugees fleeing war , violence and persecution At least 42 states have opted into the refugee resettlement program , according to the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service .
The deadline for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Jan. 21 .
Texas , which has historically resettled more refugees than any other state , has seen a sharp decline in the number of refugees resettled since 2016 .
In 2016 , roughly 7,800 refugees resettled in the state , according to Church World Service .
That number dropped by roughly 3,000 people the following year .
In 2019 , Texas resettled 2,458 refugees , according to the group .
In his letter , Abbott noted that Texas has welcomed more refugees over the past decade than any other state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settled in the U.S .
But , Abbott wrote , Texas can ’ t accept additional refugees this year because Congress has left the state “ to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system.
” “ Texas continues to have to deal with the consequences of an immigration system that Congress has failed to fix , ” Abbott said .
“ At this time , the state and non-profit organizations have a responsibility to dedicate available resources to those who are already here , including refugees , migrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Texans.
” Before his decision , church leaders urged Abbott to allow refugee resettlement .
Nearly 350 evangelical Christians in Texas sent letters to Abbott , urging him to consent to resettling refugees .
World Relief , a resettlement agency , and the Evangelical Immigration Table coordinated the effort to send letters to 14 governors , including Abbott .
Rebecca Lightsey , executive director of Austin-based American Gateways , called the decision “ a whopping blow to people who need our help the most.
” American Gateways provides legal assistance to immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Texas will lose about $ 17 million in federal money that is meant to support refugees who have resettled in the state .
Resettlement agencies are federally funded .
Ali Noorani , executive director of the advocacy organization National Immigration Forum , said the decision will make it more difficult for employers to hire skilled workers in the state .
`` I just think the governor has crumbled in the face of a lot of fear mongering , and along the way I think he 's undermining the economy of the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans took to social media to applaud Abbott ’ s decision .
“ This is the right position , '' U.S. Rep. Chip Roy , a Republican from Hays County , tweeted .
” The federal government has utterly failed Texas , the nation , and immigrants .
We endanger both Americans & immigrants when we continue w/ failed open borders .
We should secure our border & modernize our immigration system.
“ State Rep. Matt Schaefer , R-Tyler , said on Twitter , “ the same Fed Govt that asks us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border security , ” adding that “ non-border states can step up.
” In a statement Friday , a Texas Democratic Party spokesman said Abbott is in “ complete opposition to our Texas values ” by barring refugees .
More : Steyer wants climate change refugees to be able to enter US legally “ Refugees are not political pawns and bargaining chips to advance anti-immigrant policies , ” Abhi Rahman , a spokesman for the party , said in a statement .
“ We should be welcoming refugees to Texas instead of ending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also ended the state ’ s participation in the U.S .
Refugee Resettlement Program in 2016 , but the move did not block refugees from entering the Lone Star State .
Instead , it stopped Texas from disbursing federal dollars to local agencies .
The federal government instead selected four nonprofits around the state to administer the refugee resettlement program .
At the time , Abbott cited potential security threats for withdrawing from the program .
Refugee resettlement agencies filed a lawsuit challenging Trump ’ s executive order in November , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal judge heard arguments in the case this week .

Nicole Cobler, Austin American-Statesman

Gov. Greg Abbott says Texas won’t accept refugees in 2020
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Friday that the state won’t participate in the federal refugee resettlement program this year, citing strained state resources in dealing with a “broken federal immigration system.”
The decision makes Texas the first state to decline refugee resettlement, allowed under a new rule created by the Trump administration.
Abbott had faced pressure to remain in the program from leaders of the state’s largest cities, refugee advocates and evangelical Christians. State Democrats rebuked Abbott over the decision; a few Republicans praised him.
In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Abbott said he “cannot consent to initial refugee resettlement” in 2020.
"This decision does not deny any refugee access to the United States. Nor does it preclude a refugee from later coming to Texas after initially settling in another state," Abbott wrote.
More: Trump administration to slash admission of refugees fleeing war, violence and persecution
At least 42 states have opted into the refugee resettlement program, according to the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. The deadline for states to decide whether to receive refugees is Jan. 21.
Texas, which has historically resettled more refugees than any other state, has seen a sharp decline in the number of refugees resettled since 2016.
In 2016, roughly 7,800 refugees resettled in the state, according to Church World Service. That number dropped by roughly 3,000 people the following year. In 2019, Texas resettled 2,458 refugees, according to the group.
In his letter, Abbott noted that Texas has welcomed more refugees over the past decade than any other state, amounting to 10% of all refugees settled in the U.S.
But, Abbott wrote, Texas can’t accept additional refugees this year because Congress has left the state “to deal with disproportionate migration issues resulting from a broken federal immigration system.”
“Texas continues to have to deal with the consequences of an immigration system that Congress has failed to fix,” Abbott said. “At this time, the state and non-profit organizations have a responsibility to dedicate available resources to those who are already here, including refugees, migrants, and the homeless — indeed, all Texans.”
’A whopping blow’
Before his decision, church leaders urged Abbott to allow refugee resettlement.
Nearly 350 evangelical Christians in Texas sent letters to Abbott, urging him to consent to resettling refugees. World Relief, a resettlement agency, and the Evangelical Immigration Table coordinated the effort to send letters to 14 governors, including Abbott.
Rebecca Lightsey, executive director of Austin-based American Gateways, called the decision “a whopping blow to people who need our help the most.” American Gateways provides legal assistance to immigrants in 23 Central Texas counties.
Lightsey said Texas will lose about $17 million in federal money that is meant to support refugees who have resettled in the state. Resettlement agencies are federally funded.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the advocacy organization National Immigration Forum, said the decision will make it more difficult for employers to hire skilled workers in the state.
"I just think the governor has crumbled in the face of a lot of fear mongering, and along the way I think he's undermining the economy of the state," Noorani said.
’Non-border states can step up’
A few Republicans took to social media to applaud Abbott’s decision.
“This is the right position," U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Hays County, tweeted. ”The federal government has utterly failed Texas, the nation, and immigrants. We endanger both Americans & immigrants when we continue w/ failed open borders. We should secure our border & modernize our immigration system.“
State Rep. Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, said on Twitter, “the same Fed Govt that asks us to receive more refugees has failed to address border security,” adding that “non-border states can step up.”
In a statement Friday, a Texas Democratic Party spokesman said Abbott is in “complete opposition to our Texas values” by barring refugees.
More: Steyer wants climate change refugees to be able to enter US legally
“Refugees are not political pawns and bargaining chips to advance anti-immigrant policies,” Abhi Rahman, a spokesman for the party, said in a statement. “We should be welcoming refugees to Texas instead of ending a program that saves lives.”
Abbott also ended the state’s participation in the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program in 2016, but the move did not block refugees from entering the Lone Star State. Instead, it stopped Texas from disbursing federal dollars to local agencies. The federal government instead selected four nonprofits around the state to administer the refugee resettlement program.
At the time, Abbott cited potential security threats for withdrawing from the program.
Refugee resettlement agencies filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order in November, arguing that it violates federal law. A Maryland federal judge heard arguments in the case this week.
Austin American-Statesman staff writer Asher Price contributed to this report.