Congress

The Trump ally is showing less urgency to act now that he’s assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lindsey Graham has long pushed for legislation to shield special counsel Robert Mueller from President Donald Trump. But now that he’s got the power to do something about it, he’s holding off.

“If I see a reason to do it I will, but I think we’re OK right now,” the South Carolina Republican said in a brief interview.

Story Continued Below

As the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham will play a key role in how Congress responds to Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Just last month he suggested he would advance bipartisan legislation to protect the special counsel if the probe is still live by the end of February.

But Graham said recently he isn’t worried about the president, who continues to rage against a “witch hunt” that has secured a growing set of indictments and convictions, including of some close Trump campaign associates.

“I see no indication that he is going to do anything untoward toward Mr. Mueller, none,” said Graham.

His colleagues on the Judiciary Committee aren’t so sure — and they’re pushing Graham to act.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a co-sponsor of the Mueller protection bill, noted that Graham is a fellow co-sponsor and that the committee approved the bill last year under Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.).

“Chairman Graham is on the record having voted for this bill and advanced it to the floor,” Coons said. “I look forward to talking to him about why I think there continues to be urgency around protecting the special counsel.”

Graham has never kept his opinions to himself — expounding on what the president must do for political survival or laying out exactly what’s needed to cut an immigration deal.

But now that he’s Judiciary chairman, with jurisdiction over the Mueller bill, immigration, guns and more, he’ll be judged on more than just his rhetoric.

While he’ll be aided by his close ties to Trump as well as a history of bipartisanship, it’s not clear that will be enough amid an erratic presidency and polarized Congress. He’s under further pressure as he faces re-election in 2020 in a state Trump won by 14 percentage points; any split with the president could be damaging in a GOP primary.

Last year, the Judiciary Committee approved the Mueller protection bill 14-7 despite opposition from the White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Graham told reporters at the time that the Judiciary Committee “has an independent obligation to do what we think’s best” and the special counsel “now and in the future needs protection.”

McConnell kept the bill bottled up the rest of the previous Congress, and he’s shown no willingness to reverse course — a reality that is likely to weigh on Graham, who has also cultivated ties with Trump after clashing with him in the 2016 campaign.

“I think Leader McConnell has sent the signal pretty strongly that he doesn’t want those bills brought up and I suspect that Lindsey, as a new chairman, will want to pick his fights about crossing Leader McConnell when he’s made his position so clear,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another committee member.

The Mueller investigation took center stage at Attorney General nominee William Barr’s confirmation hearing last month at the Judiciary panel. Barr, who’s set to be confirmed this week, came under fire from Senate Democrats for declining to say whether he’d release Mueller’s final report publicly.

Following the hearing, Grassley and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced legislation that aims to ensure Mueller’s final report is provided to Congress and the public.

When asked about the Grassley-Blumenthal bill, Graham said that he wants to first see how Barr handles release of the final report and has “confidence he’ll be transparent.”

Grassley, Graham’s predecessor as committee chairman, still wants his bill brought up, noting that it applies to future special counsel investigations.

“I want to know what [the report] says but I also want to know what we got for 25 or 35 million dollars and so I would still hope that it would pass because we could have special counsels five years from now ten years from now,” he said.

In fact, rather than bring up the special counsel bills, he has joined Trump in voicing concern about how Trump associate Roger Stone was arrested.

“The American public has had enough of the media circus that surrounds the Special Counsel’s investigation,” Graham wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray. “Yet, the manner of this arrest appears to have only added to the spectacle. Accordingly, I write to seek justification for the tactics used and the timing of the arrest of Mr. Stone.”

Apart from Mueller, immigration also offers Graham a chance to shape bipartisan legislation in a politically-treacherous environment.

Graham has repeatedly sought to play deal-maker on an issue that has dominated Trump’s presidency. He reached an agreement with Senate Democrats to protect Dreamers last year but found it rejected by Trump. A few months later, when it appeared he would soon have the Judiciary gavel, he suggested he might be able to craft something that could be signed into law.

“On immigration, there’s a deal to be had, he told POLITICO at the time.

Graham acknowledges that action to help young undocumented immigrants is not on the table at the moment, as lawmakers from both parties struggle to even unite on a modest border security package to keep the government open.

“I don’t think it’s going to happen this round,” he said recently. “It’s too bad, too.”

Still, he’ll “see if there’s any maneuvering” to be done as Judiciary chairman. And he noted that the committee’s ranking member, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and conservative Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have been working on a proposal to address family separations.

Both Democrats and Republicans have praised Graham for how he’s handled his tenure atop the committee so far.

Although Senate Democrats grilled Barr at his confirmation hearing, it was a civil event — a real contrast to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings where Graham erupted in anger. At Barr’s hearing, Graham told his colleagues that “the immigration Lindsey will show up,” a reference to his past bipartisan work on the issue.

Blumenthal said Graham’s first committee meeting was “certainly very well done,” while Whitehouse added that Graham has “the prospect of being a very good Judiciary chair.”

Grassley said Graham may prioritize different issues than he did and described his successor as “more blunt in responding to people that irritate him.”

“Maybe that’s a good thing to be,” Grassley added, “and maybe that was one of my weaknesses.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

2020 elections

Thanks to the president’s hard-right policies and a base increasingly supportive of Palestinians, Democrats must confront tough questions like where to locate the U.S. embassy.

Democrats hoping for a united front against President Donald Trump in 2020 are trying to avoid splintering over an increasingly thorny topic: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

With an energized progressive base increasingly supportive of Palestinian rights, and a president who is stridently pro-Israel in his policy moves, Democrats are starting to grapple more than ever with the party’s once-reflexive support for Israel.

Story Continued Below

The 2020 Democratic presidential contenders are saying little publicly as they balance the competing interests. But in the meantime, pro-Israel Democrats are scrambling behind the scenes to shore up support, providing Holy Land trips to members of Congress and proposing policies they hope can bridge a growing party divide.

Against this backdrop, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota — one of the first two Muslim women ever elected to Congress — apologized on Monday for what many regarded as anti-Semitic criticisms she leveled on Twitter. The controversy, coupled with the substance of the overall policy debate, has concerned Democratic consultants as much as it encourages Republicans who hope that Trump’s support of Israel will allow them to peel off Jewish voters, a key Democratic constituency.

“What you have emerging are at least two Democratic views of Israel and a Republican view,” said Aaron David Miller, who has advised several presidential administrations on the Middle East conflict. “The real question to me is to what degree the progressive view is going to influence and or shape the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”

Among the questions faced by the party and its growing list of Democratic presidential candidates: Should the United States move its embassy from Jerusalem back to Tel Aviv? Should the Democratic Party platform use the word “occupation” to describe lands claimed by Palestinians? Is the pro-Palestinian “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement an acceptable form of protest against Israel?

That last issue, nicknamed “BDS,” has laid bare the divisions among Democrats.

Of at least seven U.S. senators running or considering vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, six of them — Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — recently voted against a measure from Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio that would allow state and local governments to not do business with companies that support boycotting, sanctioning and divesting from Israel.

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar — who has declared she is running for the White House — voted with the majority when the legislation passed, 77-23, last week. Klobuchar is known for her strong support of Israel and had a rabbi at the launch of her presidential campaign this past weekend.

In total, Democrats accounted for 22 of the “no” votes and 25 of the “yes” votes on the overall package, which also included other measures related to the Middle East. Middle East watchers say that a decade ago, the anti-BDS aspect would have garnered almost no opposition.

The anti-BDS piece of the package may not survive the Democratic-controlled U.S. House, where Omar and fellow Muslim American Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan have emerged as outspoken supporters of Palestinian rights. The caucus’s freshman sensation, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has also tweeted remarks perceived as more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israel.

Booker of New Jersey made perhaps the biggest pivot; last year, he co-sponsored a similar bill aimed at undermining the boycott movement. But he voted against the recent measure that moved in the Senate.

Like many of his potential 2020 Democratic rivals, Booker explained his vote on grounds that the measure could threaten people’s First Amendment rights. “There are ways to combat BDS without compromising free speech, and this bill as it currently stands plainly misses the mark,” Booker said in a statement.

Nonetheless, Republicans are using the measure to paint Democrats as weak on Israel, and the vote has added to the unease among pro-Israel groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

Warren also faced critical coverage over Israel recently when The Jerusalem Post noted that she failed to push back on the description of Israel as “an apartheid state” during a question-and-answer moment in New Hampshire.

The critical tenor of that question underscores the drift of the Democratic Party over the years. According to a Pew Research poll last year, 79 percent of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians but only 27 percent of Democrats feel that way. The poll also found that Republicans’ support for Israel over Palestinians had increased by 29 percentage points since 2001, while Democratic support of Israel over Palestinians declined by 11 points in that same timespan.

Still, a Mellman Group poll taken just before the elections last year found that 68 percent of Jewish voters identify as Democrats, while 25 percent identify as Republicans. And, compared to the population overall, 76 percent of Jewish voters held an unfavorable view of Trump — even though he was the first U.S. president to honor a longstanding commitment to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

But Trump also angered many in the Jewish community when he failed to clearly denounce neo-Nazis after the 2017 violent clashes in Charlottesville, Va., and for running a campaign supported by white nationalists.

Still, the pro-Palestinian drift of the party has increasingly worried some Democratic activists. That fear is especially pronounced in Florida, home to both a large Jewish population and Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. Florida also is the nation’s largest swing state that’s central to Trump’s re-election hopes.

“As far as that type of rhetoric from Omar and some of the debate driving Jewish people from the party, there is a definite risk if leadership doesn’t reject the promotion of BDS and anti-Semitism,” said Evan Ross, an AIPAC member and Democratic activist from Miami-Dade, Florida’s most populous county.

Ross noted that the Democrats’ nominee for governor in 2018, Andrew Gillum, took heat from Republican Ron DeSantis over the BDS issue. When DeSantis narrowly won the governor’s mansion, even some Democrats cited his pro-Israel platform as a reason for the victory.

“As a Republican, what’s happening in the Democratic Party is great politically for us. But it’s awful for the Jewish community and anyone who cares about the issues we care about,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

“This is going to come to a head in the Democratic Party,” he said. “They’re trying to keep a lid on this but they can’t.”

The shifting views of Israel among Democrats are in part the result of years of lobbying by activists concerned about Palestinian rights. But the ascent of a hard-right government in Israel has accelerated the trend, making support for the country less reflexively bipartisan.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s seeming disrespect toward former President Barack Obama upset many in the party, especially its African-American members. Many black Democrats skipped Netanyahu’s March 3, 2015, speech to Congress — in which he urged lawmakers to vote against the nuclear deal Obama negotiated with Iran.

Democratic pro-Israel activists have stepped up lobbying since Democrats recaptured the House last November. In January, for instance, a group of national security experts, some of whom may join Democratic campaigns, visited Israel to get a lay of the political landscape, meeting with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders.

The weeklong trip was organized by J Street, the left-leaning pro-Israel group that has battled for primacy with the more conservative and established AIPAC.

Also last month, a new pro-Israel organization popped up in Washington.

The Democratic Majority for Israel, led by several veteran Democrats, appears to be an unofficial spinoff of AIPAC. It aims to combat the waning enthusiasm for Israel among progressives. The group says that it will focus its “education and advocacy efforts first around the 2020 presidential and congressional elections.”

A big Democratic concern: how to handle the issue of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem? Trump moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv over Palestinian objections. The Trump administration also has moved to downgrade the status of the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, the diplomatic mission that dealt directly with the Palestinians, who did not want to go through an embassy linked to Israel.

One campaign platform proposal being floated among Democratic consultants is to keep the embassy in Jerusalem but reestablish a diplomatic mission — possibly something beyond just a consulate general — in a part of East Jerusalem that Palestinians claim for a future capital.

“There are discussions taking place about how to recognize the Palestinians’ connection to the East Jerusalem, to rebalance the ledger after Trump’s attempt to take the issue of Jerusalem off the table,” said Dylan Williams of J Street.

But more left-leaning activists say that may not be enough.

“They should move the embassy back,” said Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. “They should bring U.S. policy in line with international law, which was really what the embassy’s move subverted. That is the least that needs to happen.”

For the most part, the numerous Democrats considering a White House run have not fully fleshed out their foreign policy ideas, much less their exact views on Israel and the Palestinians.

Democratic activists say they expect a more intense fight than usual over the Democratic Party platform, especially on how it describes the plight of the Palestinians and whether it uses the term “occupation.”

Supporters of Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont eyeing a second run for the Democratic nomination, are expected to push for a mention of “occupation.” Sanders’ side lost that same battle, and the nomination, when he ran in 2016.

More moderate 2020 candidates or those aligned more closely with Israel are likely to argue against language such as “occupation” on grounds that it could offend Israelis, who prefer terms like “contested” or “disputed” and in some cases question any Palestinian claim to the territories.

Democratic activists stress that the 2020 election is still a political lifetime away, but acknowledge that when it comes to Israel, Republicans are far more united in offering uncritical support.

“The more contentious fight is going to be among Democrats,” said one Democratic strategist not yet affiliated with any campaign. “Our job is to mend the rifts here.”

That being said, there’s a strong belief that no matter who wins the Democratic primary, the party will unite behind them regardless of their stand on Israel.

After all, for Democrats, the election is about Trump, said Miller, the Middle East expert.

“If the Democratic Party’s prime directive is defeating Donald Trump,” he said, “then various elements of the party would or should go to some lengths to ensure that no issue drives a wedge, least of all the issue of Israel.”

Republicans and Democrats waged a messaging war Tuesday over the number of detention beds in their new bipartisan funding deal and whether it pays for a “wall” or “fencing.”

The deal, brokered Monday night by House and Senate lawmakers, will avert another partial government shutdown if passed into law by midnight Friday. First, though, it must survive scrutiny from both parties — and win over the White House.

Story Continued Below

“Both sides have to be able to claim that they got something out of the deal, and I think that’s what you’re seeing now,” said Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The agreement will also need buy-in from President Donald Trump — who did not appear convinced of the compromise early Tuesday.

“I’m not happy about it. It’s not doing the trick,“ he said. “But I’m adding things to it. I will add whatever I have to add.“

One point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is whether the border security funding covers a “wall” — Trump’s signature campaign promise.

The deal provides $1.4 billion that will fund approximately 55 new miles of border barriers. The amount remains far below Trump’s $5.7 billion demand in wall funds, which led to a 35-day partial government shutdown in December and January.

Under the agreement, the barriers must adhere to currently deployed designs, including the “steel slats” that Trump has said could be acceptable for security.

However, the proposal excludes the possibility of building wall based on any of the eight prototypes commissioned by Trump and built in the San Diego area.

Whether lawmakers describe the current barriers on the border as “wall“ or “fencing” often falls along party lines — and that trend continued Tuesday.

A Republican summary of the deal said it allocates the money “for the border wall.” But Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a written statement that the proposal would pay for “fencing in Texas“ that equaled the funding boost provided last year.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a third path and said the funds would pay for “new border barriers“ when touting the agreement on the Senate floor Tuesday.

The barrier funding would be similar to the amount approved by Congress last year. A spending bill passed in March provided $1.4 billion to build an estimated 84 miles of new and replacement barriers along the southwest border. Thirty-three of the miles provided in that bill were devoted to new miles of barriers using existing designs.

The entirety of the new mileage under the latest proposal will be in Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley sector in South Texas, according to summaries of the deal. One congressional office involved in the talks said the agreement includes “major restrictions to protect community and environmental interests,” but the details remained unclear Tuesday.

Detention spending also emerged in recent days as a point of contention. Democrats sought to cap detention funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as the agency continues to detain more immigrants under Trump.

A spending bill passed in fiscal year 2018 provided funding for a yearly average of 40,520 beds. ICE exceeded that number significantly in the past year: the agency held 48,502 people as of Feb. 2 and its “average daily population” (the yearly average) stood at 45,814 detainees.

The deal reached Monday would fund a yearly average of 45,274 detention beds, according to two offices involved in the talks. That’s a 12 percent increase over the levels funded in last year’s spending bill — even as Democrats have disputed that number.

Feinstein said Tuesday that the deal would keep detention bed funding flat at 40,520 beds — a figure at odds with reports from congressional staffers with knowledge of the talks.

A Democratic congressional aide told POLITICO that Democrats assume that ICE detention levels will fall throughout the year “because they are so high now” and will finish at closer to 40,000 by the year’s end. But that hasn’t been the trend in recent years, and the Trump administration has given no indication it will stop trying to detain more migrants.

“I think it’s unfortunate that ICE has shown that they are overspending their budget and they’re still getting increases for immigration jails,” said one advocate who sought to remain anonymous because a deal had not been publicly announced. “They should be accountable.”

Beyond that, the agreement will not cap ICE detention levels, which means the Homeland Security Department will have the option to transfer and reprogram funds to increase detention funding later in the year.

A summary of the deal from a Republican congressional office estimated that ICE could potentially detain 58,500 people with the funding flexibility provided in the agreement.

The Trump administration pushed hard against the possibility of a detention cap in recent days. Matthew Albence, a top ICE official, told reporters Monday that if Congress limited detention levels, the agency would “immediately be forced to release criminal aliens.”

The 45,274 beds in the bipartisan deal would be sufficient for the Trump administration, according to a DHS official, because ICE could potentially shift funding from other areas later in the year.

“As long as there’s not a cap, we’re good,” the official told POLITICO.

The Democratic congressional staffer also lauded humanitarian provisions in the deal. The staffer said the proposal includes funding to improve Customs and Border Protection temporary holding facilities for migrants “to meet the unique humanitarian needs of migrants, especially children and families.”

In addition, the agreement provides funding for “alternatives to detention,” such as ankle bracelets and case management programs for detainees, the staffer said.