Facebook paused the integration of animated search engine Giphy into its services after United Kingdom regulators opened an antirust investigation into the recent acquisition, according to a source familiar with the matter.The U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced Friday it was looking into whether Facebook's move "may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services."The regulators submitted an official enforcement order on Tuesday.Australian regulators also opened an antitrust investigation into the deal earlier this week.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said it is looking into whether the deal may give Facebook data that strengthens its market power or harms online messaging rivals — many of which use Giphy.Facebook's roughly $400 million acquisition of Giphy has raised antitrust concerns in the U.S. as well.Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said at the time that “Facebook wants Giphy so it can collect even more data on us."Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharThe Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by The Air Line Pilots Association - White House moves closer to Pelosi on virus relief bill EPA delivers win for ethanol industry angered by waivers to refiners It's time for newspapers to stop endorsing presidential candidates MORE (D-Minn.) called on the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the deal.Sarah Miller, director of the American Economic Liberties Project, called the deal "just the latest example of the Federal Trade Commission standing by while Facebook and Google centralize control over online communications."The FTC is currently investigating several large tech companies, including Facebook.It also evaluating past mergers in the industry that did not trigger regulatory review at the time.A spokesperson for Facebook told The Hill Friday that the company is "prepared to show regulators that this acquisition is positive for consumers, developers, and content creators alike.”

The first time New Hampshire state Sen. Martha Hennessey heard Sen. Cory Booker speak, he reminded her of a Baptist preacher. “He was so ‘love and hope,’” she says. “Frankly, I was almost in tears.”At the same time, she thought to herself, I’m not sure America is going to like this. This might be a little touchy-feely.Senator Hennessey and her husband hosted the presidential candidate overnight in early summertime, as part of his circuit of homestays to get to know the state. When he arrived at their home in Hanover, she was still driving back from a late session at the statehouse. It was up to her husband to figure out what to feed an ex-football star turned vegan. The verdict? Rice cakes with freshly ground almond butter. The next morning, as the couple’s Maltese-poodle mixes climbed into Senator Booker’s lap, the 50-year-old bachelor chatted with them and, at his staff’s urging, told them about his new girlfriend, actress and activist Rosario Dawson. “It’s like he was a friend that was visiting us from college,” says Senator Hennessey. But while she enjoyed the visit, the New Hampshire Democrat – who’d been hoping to endorse a female nominee – wasn’t ready to commit. In this season of political courtship, many voters so far seem to see Senator Booker as “friend” material. “He’s not the one that they have a romantic interest in,” says Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute in New Jersey, who has been following the senator since he first ran for mayor of Newark in 2002. The latest Monmouth poll shows Senator Booker in a five-way tie for 8th place among Democratic candidates, with 1% of the vote. Nobel politics: Do Thunberg and Trump have something in common?Many Democrats are furious with President Donald Trump, and looking for a fighter to lead them; one voter even asked the athletic New Jersey senator to punch the president in the face. But Senator Booker is trying to convince them to take a different approach. Over and over, the son of civil rights activists, who for nearly two decades tested his ideals in Newark’s grittiest neighborhoods, insists that love is the mightiest weapon with which to combat the nation’s challenges.“I was raised by parents who did not flinch in telling me about the wretchedness of life, about the bigotry, and hate, and violence,” he says in a phone interview. “But they taught me that you don’t combat that by abandoning your virtues, but by doubling down on them, and that that is in fact a harder way. ... It takes a toughness and a strength. But ultimately it’s the best way to heal, to empower, to strengthen, to overcome.”If it weren’t for a white New Jersey lawyer moved by the 1965 showdown between civil rights protesters and police on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Senator Booker may have never become the nation’s ninth African American senator.That lawyer, who couldn’t afford a ticket to join the protesters in Alabama, decided instead to offer pro bono legal work for the Fair Housing Council. Several years later, he played a role in helping Cory Booker’s parents buy a home in predominantly white Harrington Park despite the virulent opposition of the real estate agent involved.From that community of relative privilege, young Cory was able to springboard to Stanford on a football scholarship, then on to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and finally to Yale Law School. But it was in Newark that he found – and honed – his sense of mission. He moved into Brick Towers, an apartment complex in the inner city that had fallen into disrepair and was turned over to Newark’s housing authority several years later. The elevators were often broken and the stairwells littered with drug paraphernalia and feces.It was a neighbor, Virginia Jones, who helped him see the potential of the city and its residents. And it was she who held him when he emerged one morning, devastated by the murder of a young man whom he had tried in vain to save the previous night. Robert F. Bukaty/AP Chloe Armstrong (center), of North Conway, New Hampshire, cheers during a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey before the New Hampshire state Democratic Party convention, Sept. 7, 2019, in Manchester, New Hampshire. Ms. Jones, who years before had lost her own son to a shooting, urged him through his tears: Stay faithful.“For me, Newark was the best proving ground because I ... saw just awful, awful realities,” says Senator Booker. The experience, he says, made him understand the impulse to hate or the desire to lash out. “But what I also realized was that in the times where the most challenging, hurtful, painful things come forward, you actually see the greatest of human spirit, the greatest of human potential. I saw people who were able to ignite the best in others. And that’s the model of leadership that I think we need at this time in America.”While Cory Booker may talk about love, he harbors no illusions about the ugly realities of life – or politics. He knows what it’s like to have a dirty diaper thrown at him as when, as city councilman, he was leading a 10-day hunger strike to protest inadequate policing of drug dealers. Or to be called a Republican and a “[gay slur] white boy” by Newark’s five-term incumbent Mayor Sharpe James, who also alleged that his challenger was taking money from the Ku Klux Klan.In that 2002 contest, featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Street Fight,” Cory Booker lost to Mr. James by 6 percentage points. Four years later, he came back to win by the largest margin in Newark’s history. As mayor, he teamed up with Republican Gov. Chris Christie to secure a $100 million investment from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg in the city’s schools, and raised $300 million more through other philanthropic efforts.As much as he did to champion Newark, some saw his ambitions – for the city and himself – as eclipsing the less-glamorous parts of the job.“It’s great to paint a house, but he didn’t care at all about the plumbing and the electric,” says a Democratic operative in New Jersey. “But honestly before him, nobody cared about anything in Newark.”The city has continued to attract development since Senator Booker left for Capitol Hill in 2013, but it has also become engulfed in a lead water crisis due to corroding pipes. The Booker campaign has vociferously denied that he bears any responsibility, noting that city water tests two years after he left still bore no signs of elevated lead levels. In his book, “United,” Senator Booker admits he too often tried to solve things personally. He famously went into a burning building to rescue a woman, and shoveled residents’ driveways during a blizzard. Critics have accused him of staging such “stunts” for political gain. But whether he was moved by ambition, genuine care, or both, he has lived the problems of inner city America in a way that few presidential candidates have.“There are a lot of places Cory Booker could have gone to be more powerful,” says Herb Jackson, a veteran New Jersey political reporter who covered his Senate campaigns. “He is motivated by these things, I think sincerely.”Now, in what Senator Booker calls “a moral moment” for the country, he is highlighting that experience in an effort to persuade voters that he knows best how to unite the country around shared ideals.“I am here right now because a white guy on a couch, at a time of moral trial in our nation, did not just sit there,” he tells a crowd in Bedford, New Hampshire, on a late September morning. “He did not even know that I would one day exist, but he stood up for the ideals of America. And why am I running for president? Because they’re in peril. Our dream is in trouble.”Over the plinking of forks at Politics & Eggs, a staple on the New Hampshire campaign circuit, Senator Booker preaches his civic gospel.In thundering tones, he transports the crowd from the colonial charm of the Bedford Village Inn to a memorial in Memphis, Tennessee, erected at the assassination site of Martin Luther King Jr. Elise Amendola/AP Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey reacts as he is introduced at a campaign event, Aug. 17, 2019, in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Behold, here cometh a dreamer ... let us slay him and see what becomes of his dream, reads the plaque, quoting from the biblical story of Joseph, who was thrown into a pit by his envious brothers. Senator Booker, a Baptist, sees it as a metaphor for the state of the nation.“America, we are in a pit right now,” he tells the crowd. “We are in a pit right now when we hate each other just because we vote differently.”Some might call Senator Booker himself a dreamer – and not in a good way. With 10 days left in September, his campaign told supporters he might quit the race if they couldn’t raise $1.7 million by the end of the month. He wound up exceeding that goal by nearly half a million dollars, bringing his total haul for the third quarter to $6 million. But that’s still less than a third of what Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, raised, and a fourth of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ total.“A message of inclusiveness and cooperation isn’t something that either party wants to hear right now,” says Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.Still, he adds, that could change before the New Hampshire primary, expected to be held Feb. 11. As the primary draws near and more voters start paying attention, he says, Senator Booker may see his support grow, “because then you’re getting away from the activists, and getting down to regular rank-and-file voters.”Some 40% of the state’s voters are independents and are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary. Nationwide, only 9% of Democrats say they have made up their mind.Jon Morgan was the first New Hampshire state senator to endorse Senator Booker. “We need more people like Cory Booker to be involved in rebuilding our country after the damage of the past several years under this current administration,” he says in a phone interview.“Hold on one second, my 1-year-old is trying to kill himself,” he adds, as wailing can be heard in the background. “The 2020 results are incredibly important to me, but ... I’m more worried about the trajectory that we’re on for the next generation of Americans – my kids included,” he says, noting the increasing animosity between those with differing political opinions.In mid-September, Senator Hennessey followed suit. In endorsing Senator Booker, she noted that he champions many of the same progressive ideals as his fellow Democratic presidential contenders – “Medicare for All,” gun licensing and an assault weapon ban, equality for LGBTQ people, and creating a White House Office of Reproductive Freedom for “advancing abortion rights.” But it was his different tone, she says, focusing on unifying the country rather than pouring fuel on the anti-Trump bonfire, that clinched her support.“I would love to just talk about all the things I can’t stand about the current administration ... but I’m not finding it very productive,” says Senator Hennessey. “I need hope, I need myself to believe that not only can we get all the great progressive measures but also that we can learn to think about each other again and care for each other again and somehow put hatred aside.”Back at Politics & Eggs, as Senator Booker is building to a crescendo, phones start buzzing as official Washington begins blowing up over the just-released whistleblower complaint that has prompted an impeachment inquiry against President Trump.Undeterred, the senator goes on. Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. “What will become of our dream? ... Will it become divided against itself? Or will we stand up and say, not on my watch,” he asks. “This election will not be about one guy and one office, it will be about reclaiming the dream. And if we do that, watch out America, watch out the world, we will rise.”And then the well-coiffed crowd of businessmen and state legislators does something that rarely happens at Politics & Eggs. They rise, one by one, and give their guest a standing ovation.

Enlarge this image Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., visits Masterpiece Barber College as he campaigns for Nevada Democratic candidates in October in Las Vegas. Ethan Miller/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Ethan Miller/Getty Images Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., visits Masterpiece Barber College as he campaigns for Nevada Democratic candidates in October in Las Vegas. Ethan Miller/Getty Images Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey is the latest Democrat to enter the increasingly crowded race for the White House, making the initial announcement with a message of unity."We are better when we help each other," Booker says in a video message. "I believe that we can build a country where no one is forgotten, no one is left behind; where parents can put food on the table; where there are good-paying jobs with good benefits in every neighborhood; where our criminal justice system keeps us safe instead of shuffling more children into cages and coffins; where we see the faces of our leaders on television and feel pride, not shame."The video sets the tone for a campaign that's expected to counter President Trump's divisive, base-focused politics with a conscious emphasis on big-picture themes of common purpose and love overcoming political divisions.Booker's goal, he told NPR in 2017, is "not to meet hate with hate, but meet it with love. Not to meet darkness with darkness, but meet it with light. I really do think we're at a moral moment in our country. The only way we can move this country in the way it needs to go is not at pointing other people about what they're doing, but turning up the values we believe in." Politics Which Democrats Are Running In 2020 — And Which Still Might Booker planned a series of media appearances as part of his rollout on Friday, including The Tom Joyner Morning Show, Univision's Despierta America and ABC's The View.The 49-year-old Booker, a former Newark mayor who was first elected to the Senate in a 2013 special election, has long been seen as a likely candidate to challenge Trump. He made it apparent he was likely to run with a couple of strategic moves, joining the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2017, as well as making frequent trips to early primary voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire to raise money and campaign for local candidates in the 2018 midterm elections.His trips left a positive impression with several political professionals in the early primary and caucus states. Jim Demers, who co-chaired Barack Obama's 2008 New Hampshire campaign, told NPR that Booker has "built his career on a message of unity. And I think that people all across the country are tired of how divided Americans have become." Shots - Health News Several Democrats Eyeing A Presidential Run Embrace 'Medicare-For-All' Even before he was elected to the Senate, Booker had amassed a national following as Newark's mayor, primarily due to his early embrace of Twitter and other social media platforms.He attracted attention to causes such as homelessness and shortcomings of the federal food stamp program by going on hunger strikes and temporarily living in a tent, among other highly publicized moves. Booker also regularly interacted with constituents on Twitter. When someone tweeted that her elderly father needed help shoveling his driveway, Booker showed up to do it.He also once ran into a fire, saving a woman's life while suffering smoke inhalation and burns.Booker has continued this approach in the Senate. During the height of the Republican push to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Booker drew attention to the debate by holding a sit-in on the steps of the Senate with other Democrats, and livestreaming the event for hours.Those efforts have, at times, backfired. During the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh last fall, Booker dramatically threatened to release confidential documents from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White House, even though, as he claimed, "the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate." Booker called it his "Spartacus moment," but the drama was significantly deflated when it became clear that the documents in question already had been approved for public release. Politics 'Does It Have To Be Him?': N.H. Progressives Split By Another Sanders Bid In the Senate, Booker has been a strong advocate of overhauling the criminal justice system. He was an original co-sponsor of the First Step Act, bipartisan legislation passed in December that addresses drug sentencing and rehabilitation for inmates leaving prison. He was also one of the first senators to call for legalizing marijuana.Booker is an advocate of Medicare for all, raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and a job guarantee program. He's also been a strong opponent of Trump's Cabinet appointments. Politics Likely 2020 Democratic Candidates Want To Guarantee A Job To Every American While his savvy on both social and traditional media earned him a high profile, Booker also has faced criticism from progressives for appearing too close to both Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies, a major industry in New Jersey.And as a surrogate for the 2012 Obama campaign, Booker admonished Democratic criticism of GOP nominee Mitt Romney's business career, saying: "Stop attacking private equity."In 2017, Booker told NPR that he stopped taking donations from the pharmaceutical industry, previously a prominent source of his campaign funds. In recent years he has co-sponsored a measure, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to legalize pharmaceutical imports from Canada, and has been increasingly more outspoken about high drug prices. Politics For 2020 Democrats, The Race Is On To Win Over Black Voters The New Jersey Democrat is the fourth senator to announce a run for president, joining Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris. Booker is the second black candidate in the increasingly large and diverse 2020 Democratic primary field. Booker and Harris have worked together on the Senate Judiciary Committee and have a close relationship but are expected to compete for the support of African-American voters — a key constituency in a Democratic primary.

The news that the “Remain in Mexico” policy might be invalidated sparked chaos in some areas of the border, where some migrants have been living for months in filthy and crime-ridden areas, with little hope of entering the United States. Emma Obando, 42, had been cooking plantains for her two sons in the Matamoros tent encampment on Friday when a crying woman ran toward her, yelling to everyone she passed, “We should go; we should cross right now because they have undone the law of M.P.P.”Ms. Obando has been living in Matamoros with her 7- and 10-year-old sons, the elder of whom has autism, since September, after having fled their home in Honduras. She said many migrants flocked to the border after hearing news of the court ruling on Friday, but soon after, organizers called them off, instead advising people not to “make a big fuss” yet, and to prepare their government documents instead.Eventually, Ms. Obando said, the mood calmed. She decided to try crossing into the United States with her sons on Saturday.Mexican officials and civic leaders were also trying to make sense of how the ruling might impact their communities.“There are various unknowns, various questions,” said Dirvin Luis García Gutiérrez, the head of the migration program for the population agency in the state of Chihuahua.He said that Ciudad Juárez, where more than 19,700 migrants have been returned under the program, was currently supporting a transient population of between 13,000 and 15,000 migrants, including migrants returned under the program as well as those who are still waiting to cross into the United States to apply for asylum.In an immigration court in downtown San Diego on Friday morning, more than a dozen migrants who had been subjected to “Remain in Mexico” were in court for their asylum hearings when the appeals court’s opinion was released. Most were not represented by lawyers and had little guidance on how to proceed.

ISTANBUL—In its former heartland of Syria and Iraq, the once mighty Islamic State has turned, at least for now, into little more than a nuisance.But that’s not the case for the self-declared caliphate’s far-flung “provinces,” from West Africa to Afghanistan to Southeast Asia.There, local insurgencies that adopted Islamic State’s brand and...

House Democrats are calling for investigations into two temporary immigration courts that opened along the southern border last month where migrants who have been waiting in Mexico are fighting to obtain asylum in the US, according to a letter sent Thursday.The courts — located in tent complexes near US Customs and Border Protection ports in Laredo and Brownsville, Texas — were built to hear cases from migrants who have been sent back to Mexico under President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. Unveiled in January, the policy has affected over 50,000 migrants found to have credible asylum claims, including those who present themselves at ports of entry on the southern border and those who are apprehended while trying to cross the border without authorization.The tent courts, which opened in early September with no advance notice to the public, have the capacity to hold as many as 420 hearings per day in Laredo and 720 in Brownsville conducted exclusively by video. Immigrants and their attorneys video conference with judges and DHS attorneys appearing virtually, streamed from brick-and-mortar immigration courts hundreds of miles away.Democratic leaders, led by Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair Joaquin Castro, raised concerns Thursday that the tent facilities have led to violations of migrants’ due process rights by restricting their access to attorneys and relying on teleconferencing. They also expressed alarm that asylum seekers processed in the facilities are being returned to Mexico even though they are in danger there and that the public has largely been barred from entering the tent facilities, shrouding their operations in secrecy. “Given the lack of access to counsel and the limitations of [video conferencing], we are concerned these tent courts do not provide full and fair consideration of their asylum claims, as required by law,” the lawmakers wrote, urging the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice’s inspectors general to investigate. “The opening and operations of these secretive tent courts are extremely problematic.”Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan had assured that members of the public and the press would be permitted to access to the facilities so long as they do not “disrupt proceedings or individuals’ privacy.” In practice, however, that’s not how they have operated, and as House Democrats pointed out Thursday, preventing the public from viewing immigration court proceedings violates federal regulations. “We are concerned that the administration has intentionally built these tent court at Customs and Border Protection ports of entry to justify limited public access to these facilities, and that this lack of transparency may allow DHS to hid abuse and due process violations that may occur in the tents,” their letter said.Laura Lynch and Leidy Perez-Davis, attorneys with the American Immigration Lawyers Association who visited the port courts shortly after they opened in September, said they and other lawyers from the National Immigrant Justice Center, Amnesty International, and the Women’s Refugee Commission were barred from observing proceedings in the courts absent a document showing that they were representing one of the migrants on site. The few attorneys that had such agreements were allowed to enter the facility a little more than an hour before their clients’ hearings to help them prepare — insufficient time given that, for many, it is their first opportunity to meet in person, Perez-Davis said. In the first few days that the courts were open, the only people allowed in the hearing rooms were immigrants and their attorneys — but critically, not their translators, Lynch said. There were few attorneys representing asylum seekers in proceedings at the port courts, and even fewer spoke fluent Spanish and could have conversations with their clients.Officials have since allowed translators into the hearing rooms, Lynch said, but neither DHS nor the DOJ have issued any formal clarification of their policy.Attorneys are also not allowed to attend “non-refoulement interviews” at the tent facilities, in which an asylum officer determines, usually over the phone, whether a migrant should be sent back to Mexico or qualifies for an exemption allowing them to go to a detention facility in the US.Limiting access to the port courts also inhibits legal aid groups’ ability to conduct presentations for migrants informing them of their rights in immigration proceedings, as they typically do in immigration courts. Perez-Davis said that she observed one hearing from San Antonio — where some of the remote immigration judges handling cases in the ports courts are based — in which a young migrant woman was confused about what “asylum” means. That kind of knowledge would have previously been provided in presentations by legal aid groups. The use of video conferencing in immigration court proceedings has long been a subject of controversy. In theory, teleconferencing would seem to make proceedings more efficient and increase access to justice, allowing attorneys and judges to partake even though they may be hundreds of miles away. But in practice, advocates argue that teleconferencing has inhibited full and fair proceedings, with some even filing a lawsuit in New York federal court in January claiming that it violates immigrants’ constitutional rights. Immigrants who appear in court via teleconference are more likely to be unrepresented and be deported, a 2015 Northwestern Law Review study found. Reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Executive Office of Immigration Review have also raised concerns about how technical difficulties, remote translation services, and the inability to read nonverbal communication over teleconference may adversely affect outcomes for immigrants. Yet despite such research, the immigration courts have increasingly used video as a stand-in for in-person interaction. In the port courts in Laredo and Brownsville, video substitutes for that kind of interaction entirely — but it has not been without hiccups so far. Lynch, Perez-Davis, and Yael Schacher, a senior US advocate at Refugees International, said they all observed connectivity issues. For migrants who must recount some of the most traumatic experiences of their lives to support their asylum claims, video conferencing makes their task harder, Perez-Davis said. “I have been asking myself what happens if you’re in the middle of the worst story you’ve ever had to tell, and the video cuts out?” she said. Migrants are required to travel in the dark and show up for processing before their hearings at the port courts early as 4:30 in the morning. That puts them at increased risk, with recent reports of violence and kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo, which is directly across the border from Laredo, and Matamoros, which is adjacent to Brownsville. The State Department has consequently issued a level four “Do Not Travel” warning in both Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.Lynch and Perez-Davis said that attorneys are also increasingly afraid of crossing the border into Mexico in light of those safety concerns. Where they used to cross over the border to deliver presentations informing migrants of their rights and the US legal process in Mexican shelters, that is no longer happening to the same degree.“It has chilled any sort of ability to provide legal representation,” Perez-Davis said. DHS purports to exempt “vulnerable populations” from the Remain in Mexico policy and allow them to remain in the US, but in practice, few migrants have been able to obtain such exemptions in non-refoulement interviews.The advocacy group Human Rights First issued a report earlier this month documenting dozens of cases in which inherently vulnerable immigrants — including those with serious health issues and pregnant women — and immigrants who were already victims of kidnapping, rape and assault in Mexico were sent back under MPP after their interviews.With attorneys barred from advocating for migrants in these interviews, migrants will likely continue to be sent back to Mexico even if they should qualify for an exemption under DHS’s own guidelines. “These interviews are a basic human rights protection to ensure that no one is returned to a country where they would face inhumane treatment, persecution or other harm,” Democrats wrote Thursday. “We are concerned that DHS is returning asylum seekers to harm in Mexico.”

The game is not over—Johnson’s coalition is fragile and he could yet make a fatal mistake under pressure. There are concerns, for example, about the prospect of checks on goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom, a symbolic border between two parts of the same country, which may yet blow up into a full-blown crisis for the government.A number of supersize asterisks also need to be added, marked up in bold, underlined, and highlighted for good measure. First of all, it remains a big if whether the Labour MPs who have broken from their party’s opposition to Johnson’s deal and who are now crucial to Johnson’s majority will stick with him. Second, even now the opposition appears to have the numbers to frustrate the government on timing—and even, perhaps, on some of the substance of Johnson’s deal. Clever parliamentary tactics this week and next are likely to be deployed to make life difficult for the prime minister, tempting him into making a mistake. Amendments could be proposed—such as protections for workers’ rights or a possible customs union with the EU—which could cause Johnson and his government serious disquiet if they pass, by making it harder for his own MPs to support the deal. The Conservative Party, not known for its discipline over the issue of Europe, will have to remain unified.The biggest asterisk of all, however, is long-term. Once the U.K. is out of the EU, the country’s political world changes irreversibly. Opposition parties must decide if they accept the new constitutional reality or not. Johnson, meanwhile, will go into the next election as the man who delivered Brexit. And there is still no majority for what Britain’s future relationship with Europe looks like—the Brexit deal Johnson assembled sets only the terms for Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc. Labour MPs prefer a close relationship with Brussels based on equal rights for workers and minimum European standards, while Johnson’s Tory backbenchers want a loose relationship in which Britain is freer to compete economically.Until Johnson has a comfortable majority of his own, the game of tic-tac-toe will continue even after Brexit—a never-ending back-and-forth.Even if Britain leaves the EU this month, on October 31 as scheduled, it would soon be in its next crisis, having to decide whether it wants to extend the “transition period” created in the exit deal—a kind of bridge between full EU membership and whatever future relationship is agreed on. Experts say there is little to no chance that the U.K. could agree on a free-trade deal with Brussels before the end of 2020, when the transition period is supposed to expire. This means Johnson could be forced to apply for an extension of either a year or two next summer—something his own MPs will abhor. Through it all, the prime minister will have to determine what kind of trade deal to negotiate with the EU.For Britain, the end game of stage one might—might—be drawing tentatively (and perhaps lengthily) to a close. Yet even if Johnson can keep his delicate majority together, the longer battle is only just beginning. Welcome to the never-ending Brexit. Tom McTagueis a London-based staff writer atThe Atlantic, and co-author ofBetting the House: The Inside Story of the 2017 Election.Connect Twitter

Enlarge this image Americans now have a 1 in 96 chance of dying from an opioid overdose, according to new analysis from the National Safety Council. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Spencer Platt/Getty Images Americans now have a 1 in 96 chance of dying from an opioid overdose, according to new analysis from the National Safety Council. Spencer Platt/Getty Images For the first time in U.S. history, a leading cause of deaths — vehicle crashes — has been surpassed in likelihood by opioid overdoses, according to a new report on preventable deaths from the National Safety Council.Americans now have a 1 in 96 chance of dying from an opioid overdose, according to the council's analysis of 2017 data on accidental death. The probability of dying in a motor vehicle crash is 1 in 103."The nation's opioid crisis is fueling the Council's grim probabilities, and that crisis is worsening with an influx of illicit fentanyl," the council said in a statement released Monday.Fentanyl is now the drug most often responsible for drug overdose deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in December. And that may only be a partial view of the problem: Opioid-related overdoses also have been undercounted by as much as 35 percent, according to a study published last year in the journal Addiction.The council has recommended tackling the epidemic by increasing pain management training for opioid prescribers, making the potentially lifesaving drug naloxone more widely available and expanding access to addiction treatment. National Opioid-Makers Face Wave of Lawsuits in 2019 While the leading causes of death in the U.S. are heart disease (1 in 6 chance) and cancer (1 in 7), the rising overdose numbers are part of a distressing trend the nonprofit has tracked: The lifetime odds of an American dying from a preventable, unintentional injury have gone up over the past 15 years."It is impacting our workforce, it is impacting our fathers and mothers who are still raising their children," said Ken Kolosh, manager of statistics at the National Safety Council. Kolosh said that those accidental deaths usually affect people in the "core of their life," with greater financial and emotional ramifications than deaths of those in their later years. The Two-Way Pedestrian Fatalities Remain At 25-Year High For Second Year In A Row Vehicle crashes remain a leading danger as well. Kolosh said half of people who died in crashes they analyzed were not wearing seatbelts. Meanwhile, the frequency of pedestrian deaths has increased, led by a jump in fatalities in urban areas.Pedestrian deaths have been at a 25-year high, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. A 2017 study found that an average of 13 people a day were killed by cars between 2005 and 2014, and that people of color and the elderly are disproportionately at risk."Historically, roadways have been designed to make it as efficient as possible for the vehicle," Kolosh said, noting that bicyclists and pedestrians have been shortchanged. "We now have to do a far better job of building our infrastructure to accommodate all road users."Kolosh said he hopes the council's analysis will allay unfounded fears, and remind people of more common dangers."As human beings, we're terrible at assessing our own risk," Kolosh said. "We typically focus on the unusual or scary events ... and assume that those are the riskiest."He said data show the opposite is true. Health U.S. Life Expectancy Drops Amid 'Disturbing' Rise In Overdoses And Suicides For example, an American's likelihood of dying in a "cataclysmic storm" is just 1 in 31,394.Dying as an airplane passenger? 1 in 188,364.In a train wreck? 1 in 243,765.Falling? 1 in 114.Kolosh said the probability of dying in a fall has increased (it was 1 in 119 last year), driven by more recorded falls among older adults as the U.S. population ages. Experts say the best way to prevent that risk is exercise. It's a reminder, Kolosh said, that each of the 169,936 preventable deaths recorded in 2017 were preventable."Your odds of dying are 1 in 1," Kolosh quipped. "But that doesn't mean we can't do something. If, as a society, we put the appropriate rules and regulations in place we can prevent all accidental deaths in the future."

(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.) Good evening. Here’s the latest.ImageCredit...Emily Rose Bennett for The New York Times1. The Midwest is about to experience weather whiplash as parts of the region could see temperatures rise by 70 degrees within a few days.The bitter cold lifted in the region after days of dangerously low temperatures left at least 29 dead and cities at a standstill. Detroit, above, hovered near zero degrees. But the thaw is setting in. The Chicago area may see a jarring 73-degree jump, from minus 21 on Thursday to possibly 52 on Monday.The temperature swing will bring some relief and give cities and towns a chance to assess the damage. But it also brings a new set of worries: potholes, clogs, flooding and ice jams._____ImageCredit...Tom Brenner for The New York Times2. President Trump wanted to talk.He initially invited A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The Times, to an off-the record dinner. Mr. Sulzberger declined, and instead requested an on-the-record interview including Times reporters.What followed was an 85-minute interview on a range of topics, in which the president said he was moving forward with a wall along the southwestern border, brushed off investigations that have ensnared his administration, and sized up the 2020 competition. Here’s what our reporters learned from the exchange.During the interview in the Oval Office, above, Mr. Sulzberger questioned Mr. Trump about his attacks on the press. The president called himself “a victim” of unfair coverage._____ImageCredit...Andrew Harnik/Associated Press3. The U.S. suspended one of the last Cold War nuclear arms control treaties with Russia, setting the stage for a possible new arms race.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the suspension of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, after years of insistence that Moscow violated the Reagan-era agreement, declaring that “countries must be held accountable when they break the rules.”But the Trump administration’s real aim is China: Constrained by the treaty’s provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying new weapons to counter China’s efforts in the Western Pacific._____ImageCredit...Erin Schaff for The New York Times4. Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, above,and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the House’s first two Muslim women, have been celebrated as symbols of diversity. But on Israel, they have exposed a divide within the Democratic Party.The debate pits the stalwart supporters of Israel against a wing of young liberals like Ms. Tlaiband Ms. Omar — including many young Jews — who are willing to accuse Israel of human rights abuses and demand movement toward a Palestinian state.The tussle will take center stage next week as the Senate takes up a bill aimed to curb the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, or B.D.S., movement, which is intended to pressure Israel into ending the occupation of the West Bank. The bill is also intended to stifle voices like Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar that back it. It is expected to pass easily._____ImageCredit...Bryan Anselm for The New York Times5. Today in 2020 news: Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey is the latest Democrat to jump into a presidential race that could include one of the most diverse primary fields in history.Mr. Booker, the former mayor of Newark, is hoping to run on his signature upbeat message. In an early-morning email to supporters, the senator laid out his vision for a country that will “channel our common pain back into our common purpose.”In other 2020 developments, Senator Elizabeth Warren apologized for her decision to take a DNA test to prove her Native American ancestry. The apology came as Ms. Warren is set to formally kick off her presidential run this month._____ImageCredit...Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times6. The U.S. economy added 304,000 jobs in January as employers appeared to shrug off the government shutdown.January’s growth means that American employers have added jobs for 100 consecutive months, a record run. Unemployment ticked up to 4 percent, possibly a shutdown-related anomaly. Above, a T.S.A. agent working through the shutdown in January.“This jobs report is showing no evidence of an economy slowing, certainly not falling into recession,” one economist said.One industry did not fare as well: digital media. More than 1,000 employees were laid off at BuzzFeed, Vice, AOL, Yahoo and HuffPost in recent days. We take a look at what went wrong.Separately, Foxconn said it was moving forward with a Wisconsin plant after talking to President Trump. It previously sent mixed signals._____ImageCredit...Ted S. Warren/Associated Press7. Seven manufacturers of pelvic mesh are paying $8 billion to resolve more than 100,000 claims from women. But lawyers have found ways to take big chunks of their payouts.A decade ago, doctors were quick to implant synthetic mesh to deal with urinary issues. But when women began complaining of complications, lawyers signed up patients by the thousands to file claims against the manufacturers. It turned into one of the biggest federal court litigations in United States history.But the average settlement is less than $60,000, which dwindles after retainer agreements allow lawyers to recoup 45 percent of the settlements they negotiated, plus reimbursement for expenses including private jet travel._____ImageCredit...USA Today USPW/USA Today Sports, via Reuters8. Much of this weekend’s sports news will be dominated by talk of the Los Angeles Rams’ young coach, Sean McVay, and New England’s favorite adopted son, Tom Brady, above.But before we get to Sunday’s Super Bowl LIII, the lead-up to this year’s contest has no shortage of drama. We take an illustrative look at how we got here.Whatever jersey you’re wearing, you’re going to need food. Or if you’re just here for the snacks, we’ve got you covered, too, with our best Super Bowl recipes.You can follow our live coverage of Super Bowl LIII here._____Image9. Scott Joplin, a pianist and ragtime master. Zelda Wynn Valdes, a fashion designer who outfitted the stars of screen and stage. Gladys Bentley, a gender-bending blues performer.These remarkable black men and women never received obituaries in The New York Times — until now. We’re adding their stories, along with 10 others, to our project about prominent people whose deaths were not reported by the newspaper.The series is continuing, and will continue to expand its lens. Think we’re forgetting someone? We want your Black History Month suggestions._____ImageCredit...Northland College10. Finally, we end the day with Day-Glo flying squirrels.One spring night, a biologist saw a hot-pink squirrel fly by while he was outside with his ultraviolet flashlight. He wasn’t seeing things: A new study found that three species of flying squirrel turn hot-pink under ultraviolet illumination.Scientists are still studying why the squirrels turn this vivid color. It could be ecologically significant to the species, one researcher said, or “it could just be a cool color that they happen to produce.”Have a vibrant weekend._____Your Evening Briefing is posted at 6 p.m. Eastern.And don’t miss Your Morning Briefing. Sign up here to get it by email in the Australian, Asian, European or American morning.Want to catch up on past briefings? You can browse them here.What did you like? What do you want to see here? Let us know at [email protected].

Dominic Cummings, the chief special adviser to the prime minister, thinks the answer to Britain’s problems is hiring brilliant people to work outside of bureaucratic constraints. He may be right, but not if one of his first hires as a “weirdo and misfit” to join him in No 10 is anything to go by. Andrew Sabisky quit after it emerged he was not a wunderkind but a rightwing provocateur who promoted ideas about eugenics cloaked in the sham argument that this is hard science. Mr Sabisky, 27, had no academic research of note to his name. From a well-off family, he hardly fit Mr Cummings’ call for “true wild cards, artists, people who never went to university and fought their way out of an appalling hell hole”.It speaks volumes about the arrogance of Downing Street that Boris Johnson did not immediately dump Mr Sabisky – or even disassociate himself from his views which are routinely found in the darker, damper recesses of the internet. You cannot have such people in government unless you mean to give the impression that you agree with them. But someone in No 10 thought better. Mr Johnson’s team had gone out of its way to back Mr Sabisky. When the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, said Mr Sabisky’s comments were “not my views and those are not the views of the government” he was slapped down by Downing Street’s press operation.Mr Sabisky, like Mr Cummings, has no formal training in the fields that they both claim to understand. Earlier this month Mr Johnson claimed that his government “will be governed by science and not by mumbo-jumbo”. Hiring this individual was evidence that this is not true. If Mr Johnson or Mr Cummings wanted expertise in genetics then why not ask a scientist to advise them? The reason is the prime minister’s adviser is not interested in exploring the dilemmas presented by diverging fundamental beliefs or those informed by scientific facts. He is interested in weaponising such debates for political gain.Mr Cummings made his name by leading the team that won the 2016 Brexit referendum, writing that his opponents were “grotesque incompetents” who lost despite commanding the machinery of the state. He claims that Whitehall displays a groupthink so strong that officials strive for unanimity rather than realistically appraise alternative courses of action. He is looking therefore for “true cognitive diversity”. But if this were the case why did Mr Cummings hire someone in his own image – a privately educated rightwinger with no track record outside of politics who is dazzled by science but has a background in the humanities? Again, the reason is that this is all about pursuing a strategy of purposeful polarisation. Topics Boris Johnson Opinion Dominic Cummings Conservatives Grant Shapps Race editorials

closeVideoInspector general's report finds James Comey violated FBI rules, did not leak classified informationJustice Department watchdog says fired FBI Director James Comey mishandled Trump memos; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports from Washington.James Comey immediately shared details from a post-election briefing for then-President-elect Donald Trump with the FBI’s Russia team, according to the recently released inspector general's report on the former bureau director’s actions -- in the latest indication that traditional transition briefings were used to update the incoming president and his team, as well as gather intelligence for the ongoing FBI investigation.The long-awaited report from Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz on Thursday said Comey violated bureau policies by drafting, leaking and retaining his memos documenting private discussions with the president.The report also revealed new details about the FBI director’s actions at that time, including how Comey and his top deputies went to great lengths to confront Trump at a Jan. 6, 2017 meeting at Trump Tower with the salacious and unverified accusations contained in the dossier, which had been funded by Democrats and drafted by British ex-spy Christopher Steele.The goal of the briefing, according to witnesses who spoke to the inspector general, was to handle the subject matter sensitively -- to avoid any perception that the one-on-one briefing was an effort to hold information over the president-elect like a "Hoover-esque type of plot."But, the IG report also found other motives by the FBI.Witnesses told the inspector general they discussed the possibility that Trump "might make statements about or provide information of value to the pending Russia interference investigation" – a probe known as "Crossfire Hurricane."CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers also were in attendance at the Trump Tower meeting -- which dealt in part with the Intelligence Community Assessment into Russia’s election interference in the 2016 campaign.The group, according to the inspector general report, already knew that "several media outlets" had information about the unverified claims in the dossier "and were intending to publish it." The intelligence community directors agreed that the incoming president should be briefed and Clapper decided "the briefing should be done by Comey 'in a small group or one-on-one,'" the report said.After Comey revealed the dossier claims to Trump, the report said, he observed the president's reactions and quickly documented them for investigative purposes in a record now known as Memo 1."Comey said he had a secure FBI laptop waiting for him in his FBI vehicle and that when he got into the vehicle, he was handed the laptop and ‘began typing [Memo 1] as the vehicle moved,'" the IG report stated.REPUBLICANS PREDICT IG'S COMEY REBUKE IS TIP OF THE ICEBERG FOR FBI, DOJ OVER ANTI-TRUMP 'BIASES'Comey later headed to the New York FBI field office to discuss the matter in a secure videoconference with other members of the Crossfire Hurricane team, according to the report.Comey told the inspector general that he considered Memo 1 to be highly sensitive, with a classification akin to intelligence obtained through a court-authorized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant. Comey said it "ought to be treated...[like] FISA derived information or information in a [counterintelligence] investigation," where the standard classification is "SECRET."A short time earlier, though, according to Memo 1, Comey had assured Trump "we were not investigating him." News that Trump had been briefed on the dossier accusations by top FBI brass was later leaked and provided the impetus for reporting on the dossier's existence.Republicans expressed concern over the revelations."The evidence we have is that Comey wasn't going to brief the president just to get him up to speed,” California Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday on Fox News' "America's Newsroom."VideoSaid Nunes: "He was acting as if he was an agent working for the Crossfire Hurricane team, so that is clear evidence that he was involved in this, whereas before, he tried to pretend that he's like a step or two away from what happened."Earlier this year, a Fox News investigation revealed a similar episode, within days of the presidential election, unfolded involving incoming Vice President Mike Pence and another transition briefing.Text messages between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page indicated they discussed using briefings to the Trump team after the 2016 election to identify people they could "develop for potential relationships," track lines of questioning and "assess" changes in "demeanor.”The messages showed Strzok and Page debating staffing for an upcoming transition briefing and whether it would make sense to stay with the same agent or send a different one.When the story broke in April, the vice president demanded further investigation into the possible infiltration of the transition team.“I was deeply offended to learn that two disgraced FBI agents considered infiltrating our transition team by sending a counter intelligence agent to one of my very first intelligence briefings only 9 days after the election," Pence said in a statement. "This is an outrage and only underscores why we need to get to the bottom of how this investigation started in the first place."Republicans in the Senate responded to those disclosures by seeking more information on the transition briefings as well as media leaks."Were these efforts done to gain better communication between the respective parties, or were the briefings used as intelligence gathering operations?" Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., wrote in a joint letter in April. "Further, did any such surveillance activities continue beyond the inauguration, and in the event they did, were those activities subject to proper predication?"Lawyers for Strzok and Page did not immediately respond to requests for comment when that story was published.Fox News’ Gregory Re and Sandra Smith contributed to this report.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating military spending at an airport near a Trump property in Ayer, Scotland, as well as visits to that property by service members, in the latest of a growing number of inquiries into government expenditures that seem to financially benefit President Donald Trump and his businesses. The military has spent $11 million on fuel alone at the Prestwick Airport near Trump’s Turnberry resort since fall of 2017, Politico reported. And reporting by the Guardian found the airport has provided discounted rooms and complimentary rounds of golf at the Trump resort for some US military members. The expenditures are unusual given buying fuel from Prestwick Airport costs the government (and, ultimately, taxpayers) more than refueling at military bases, such as the nearby Lakenheath Air Base in England. And the stays at Trump resorts are equally as unusual and costly, as Politico’s Natasha Bertrand and Bryan Bender note in their account of the experiences of five Air National Guard troops who stayed the Turnberry resort this year while on a mission to Kuwait: One crew member was so struck by the choice of hotel — markedly different than the Marriotts and Hiltons the 176th maintenance squadron is used to — that he texted someone close to him and told him about the stay, sending a photo and noting that the crew’s per diem allowance wasn’t enough to cover food and drinks at the ritzy resort.The spending captured the attention of the House Oversight Committee, and in June, it sent the Pentagon a letter demanding an explanation. The Department of Defense, however, has refused to turn over any documents to investigators. Trump has been under scrutiny since the beginning of his presidency for refusing to divest his interests in his businesses. And as recently as last week, when it was reported Trump suggested Vice President Mike Pence stay at one of his hotels during a visit to Ireland, the president has been accused of using his office to enrich himself.In the case of the military spending in Scotland, lawmakers are concerned the stops at Prestwick are a means of propping up the president’s failing business venture at the expense of US taxpayers, given both the airport and the nearby Trump resort have been struggling for years. The two are interconnected as resort’s success in part depends on the airport staying open, the committee found. Accusations that Trump has been improperly benefitting from his presidency have been nearly constant since he entered office. The president has argued the fact that he has placed his financial holdings in a trust that he can access whenever he chooses protect him from conflicts of interest, but his critics argue his continuing to benefit from his hotels and resorts opens the door to corruption. They also claim that Trump may be in violation of the US Constitution’s “emoluments” clause, which bars public officials from accepting gifts from foreign parties given foreign officials have spent money at Trump properties. The Embassy of Kuwait has held celebrations at Trump’s DC hotel, as has the Embassy of the Philippines. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and the Prime Minister of Romania have both been seen at the hotel. The list goes on. As Vox’s Sean Collins reported, the spending by foreign nationals has spurred legal action that in turn has its own financial impact on the public: In fact, concerns over foreign actors spending at Trump properties has spawned two lawsuits that argue the Trump administration has violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits payments and gifts from foreign governments. Those lawsuits are being paid for by taxpayers, as the Department of Justice is defending Trump, arguing that he has not violated that clause.Republicans won’t convict Trump of anything, Democratic leaders don’t want to push an impeachment process that polls poorly, and those who do favor an “impeachment inquiry” have something more complicated in mind than standing up for the obvious principle that the president can’t line their pockets.This makes the Oversight Committee’s inquiry a rare probe into possible corruption by Congressional officials; however, without the Department of Defense’s cooperation, it’s difficult to see how the inquiry could proceed. “The committee will be forced to consider alternative steps if the Pentagon does not begin complying voluntarily in the coming days,” an aide told NBC. In the meantime, Trump’s businesses will continue to rake it in.

closeVideoFox News Flash top headlines for Feb. 26Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com.Sen. Cory Booker's run for the presidency didn't turn out the way he planned -- but it appears he won a dubious honor: member of Congress who missed more votes than any other lawmaker.In fact, Booker D-N.J., narrowly beat out Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for the distinction of missing more votes than anyone else in Congress last year, according to a report.While running for president last year, Booker missed 65 percent of votes in the Senate, more than any other lawmaker in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, including those vying for the presidency, according to NJ.com, which cited data from Congressional Quarterly.Sanders, the current frontrunner of the Democratic primary race, was a close second, missing 64 percent of votes in the Senate last year.The vast majority of votes Booker missed were “procedural, symbolic, or non-binding," a Booker spokeswoman said, according to NJ.com. The vast majority of votes Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., missed were “procedural, symbolic, or non-binding," a Booker spokeswoman told NJ.com. Booker ended his White House bid last month.Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir gave an explanation to Vermont newspaper Seven Days last August."Bernie has made a commitment over this next year to give it his best shot to run for President and win. He's all in. That sometimes comes at the expense of missing a few Senate votes, but if there are ever any votes that hinge on his presence, he will certainly be there," Shakir said.But some of the missed votes were on funding the Department of Defense, suspending the debt limit and bids to override President Trump’s vetoes of resolutions to block arms sales to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, the newspaper noted.Still, Sanders' 64 percent mark was better than during his 2016 presidential run, when he missed 71 percent of Senate votes, Seven Days reported.Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who suspended her presidential campaign last year, came in third, having missed 62 percent of votes, according to NJ.com.

CNN contributor Andrew YangAndrew YangDoctor who allegedly assaulted Evelyn Yang arrested on federal charges The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden weighs in on police shootings | Who's moderating the debates | Trump trails in post-convention polls Buttigieg launches his own podcast MORE, who made a universal basic income proposal the central issue of his former presidential campaign, said Tuesday that he had been in touch with the White House amid reports the administration is considering distributing checks to Americans to offset the economic impact of the coronavirus.“I’m pleased to see the White House adopt our vision of putting money directly into the hands of hard-working Americans,” Yang said in a statement. “It’s unfortunate to see this development take place under the current circumstances, but this is exactly what Universal Basic Income is designed to do — offer a way to ensure that Americans can make ends meet when they need it most.”My statement on the discussed stimulus package. My team has been in touch with the White House and we are offering resources. pic.twitter.com/Bi58oq7Q9V— Andrew Yang (@AndrewYang) March 17, 2020The proposal floated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin differs greatly from Yang’s, which would involve a regular flat payment of $1,000 to all American adults regardless of economic conditions.The White House and Senate proposals would involve a total of between one and three checks that varied based on the recipient’s personal circumstances. The government disbursed similar payments during the 2001 and 2007-08 recessions.“You can think of this as something like business interruption payments for the American workers,” Mnuchin told reporters at the White House on Tuesday. Mnuchin said the White House is looking at "the next two weeks" in terms of a timetable.“I look forward to monitoring the developments of the White House as they consider methods of distribution, and both me and my team are eager to offer our support to ensure this process runs as smoothly as possible,” Yang said in a statement.“My hope is that these checks extend beyond this period of dire need in order to prepare us for any future crises and the continued transformation of our economy and our society,” he added.The hashtag "YangWasRight" trended on Twitter Tuesday afternoon.The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., former Newark mayor, Rhodes scholar and Yale Law graduate, came to the presidential race with one of the more traditional candidate résumés in the vast Democratic field.He departed that race Monday, before a single vote had been cast, as a long-suffering underdog who never experienced so much as a bounce.Booker, several political experts told NBC News, ranked among the skilled candidates most deeply entangled in the chicken-and-egg riddle of modern American presidential politics: Those with money can raise more, helping to boost their standing in the polls and expand voter support. But an absence of voter support can make fundraising and other attention-grabbing activities near impossible. Booker found himself struggling both to raise money and to demonstrate support, pushing him off the debate stage and out of the ranks of serious contenders.With Booker’s departure — and the exits of Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro before him — the Democratic field has become significantly whiter than its electorate. That raises questions about representation, power and party rules shaping the nomination process, the outsize role of money in determining the nominee and what kind of campaign offers a winning path for the nation’s most diverse political party, experts said.“It’s notable that the party can’t sustain a field that reflects their base and that obviously cannot be true going into the future, not only in presidential races but also governor's races on down,” said Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, a left-leaning political action committee. “It’s deeply problematic.”Booker did, however, manage to insert a number of issues of deep concern to non-white voters into the Democratic presidential primary contest. Thanks in part to him, the party’s major candidates must now be prepared to contend with marijuana legalization, a range of economic and health disparities, and the real implications of uneven policing, political experts said.One of Booker’s biggest challenges was getting voters to see him as a candidate with the skill and the mettle to battle President Donald Trump and win — an essential question for any Democratic candidate, poll after poll have shown.BlackPAC polled black voters during the fourth quarter of 2019, and found that they picked former Vice President Joe Biden not because of his relationship with former President Barack Obama, but because they believed Biden could win, Shropshire said.The Morning RundownGet a head start on the morning's top stories.“He will move on the issues they care about. He is a fighter, and they think he has the ability to beat Trump,” Shropshire said of Biden.To Jas Sullivan, a professor of political science, psychology and African American studies at Louisiana State University, that begins to explain why a traditional background like Booker’s seems to have little value this election cycle.“While the African American electorate may like Harris and Booker as political leaders, they may not have confidence that either of them can ultimately beat Trump,” Sullivan wrote in an email.Booker’s departure from the race leaves only one black candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, in the Democratic presidential primary contest. (Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, who is Samoan American, and businessman and political newcomer Andrew Yang, who is of Taiwanese descent, remain in the race as well.)Patrick, a late entrant who does not register any support in most early state public polls, has positioned himself as a center or center-right candidate who opposes a wealth tax and “Medicare for All.” He is also a multimillionaire with what has been described as the backing of big donors and party influencers troubled by the social and economic policy ideas advanced by leading leftist candidates such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Obama is said to have encouraged Patrick to run.Booker, on the other hand, with left-of-center economic views, and ties to charter school and pharmaceutical interests, couldn’t tap Patrick’s donors, a sufficient number of small donors or traditional Democratic constituencies such as teachers unions. As he struggled to raise money, he couldn’t keep pace with the ad spending and other activities of more flush campaigns. He also couldn’t meet the requirements set by the Democratic Party for fundraising and poll performance to continue appearing on the debate stage. Booker failed to qualify for the December or January debates and mentioned this in his decision to drop out.Democratic Party rules and the nation’s campaign finance law have together made it possible for “several billionaires and multimillionaires” to transform the Democratic presidential nomination into “the new sports team, a shiny new object for billionaires,” Shropshire said.There are two billionaires in the race, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, though only Steyer has qualified for a debate. As of Monday, when Booker withdrew from the race, Steyer, a businessman and a political novice, tied or outranked Booker in multiple January polls. In a South Carolina poll conducted by Fox News, Steyer led Booker by 13 points.“The bigger issue here is Citizens United,” Shropshire said referencing a 2010 Supreme Court decision eliminating many campaign donation limits. “When you have a candidate who can say they are going to put a billion dollars into the race regardless of whether they are the nominee or not, that changes the scale of what we understand is required to be elected. Obviously that has a long- term impact on the democratic process. It distorts both our democracy and, for Democrats, our nominating process.”But that was only part of Booker’s challenge. His policy positions also may have put him to the left of the more conservative black voters who are vital to the coalition any Democrat needs to win the primary or general elections, Sullivan said. Black voters make up about a quarter of the party’s voters overall and 66 percent of the electorate in the early primary state of South Carolina.“Remember, if we compare Obama to Harris and Booker, Obama was viewed as a moderate politically,” Sullivan said, “and maybe there is a more of an attraction among African Americans.”What Booker did do is influence other candidates, forcing them to take positions on issues that might have otherwise received only brief attention or none at all, Shropshire said.Shropshire pointed to Booker’s debate stage comments that Biden “might have been high” when the former vice president said that he today opposes marijuana legalization but supports other criminal justice reforms.“Marijuana in our country is already legal for privileged people,” Booker said during a November debate in Atlanta, one of the nation’s blackest major cities. “There are people in Congress right now that admit to smoking marijuana, while there are people — our kids are in jail right now for those drug crimes.”Booker landed other zingers on the debate stage or was the first to take a position on various criminal justice reforms, immigration, the effects of the racial wealth gap, and the need for serious conversations about reparations for slavery and a national gun licensing program. He may have forced other candidates, such as Warren, to speak about them more often, and centrists, such as Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, to address them at all, Shropshire said.Shropshire highlighted Booker’s “exuberance on the trail, his wit, which I know some considered corny,” she said. “But in a real way, I think it will be missed.”

A federal appeals court on Friday delivered two blows to the Trump administration's immigration policy, ruling against a program to force migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mexico and against a rule severely limiting the number of migrants who were eligible for asylum.Hours later, however, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused its ruling after government lawyers argued it would imperil communities along the border as an estimated 25,000 asylum seekers who were encouraged to stay in Mexico got the green light to come north and argue their cases.The court's suspension of its own ruling came as Chad Wolf, the acting Homeland Security secretary, said he was working with the Justice Department to appeal the earlier ruling Friday "expeditiously."That 2-1 decision was to reinstate a block on the policy forcing migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico while their cases play out. The court also ruled in a separate, 3-0 decision, to uphold a block on a rule seeking to bar asylum eligibility for migrants who cross the border between ports of entry.In the remain-in-Mexico case, the court said it concluded that the policy, known formally as the Migrant Protection protocols, or MPP, “was invalid in its entirety” due to inconsistencies with the law and should be "enjoined in its entirety.""The court has finally affirmed what we always knew to be the case, that the provision on which the government is relying does not apply to asylum-seekers. Full stop," Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney at the SPLC’s Immigrant Justice Project, told NBC News.The Morning RundownGet a head start on the morning's top stories.In the other case, the court said it upheld an injunction against a policy that "strips asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States between designated ports of entry.""Once again the courts have recognized there is tremendous danger facing asylum seekers along the entire southern border, and that the administration cannot unilaterally rewrite the laws,” said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt in a statementAbout 60,000 migrants have been placed under the remain-in-Mexico program since it began more than a year ago on the border separating Tijuana from San Diego.In April, a federal judge temporarily blocked the policy — but just a month later, a court of appeals granted the Trump administration's request to allow the rule to take effect as the legal challenge played out. In October, the appeals court heard arguments in the challenge to the policy."The ruling is a really big deal," said Jessica Bolter, associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "But it's unclear how long it will be in effect. The government will likely appeal it to the Supreme Court.""The Supreme Court has tended to side with the administration on most immigration cases, although with some exceptions," she said.Bolter said the court's decision did not directly address what would happen to the tens of thousands of people already in Mexico.The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.But the administration has previously defended the remain in Mexico policy.In late January, the anniversary of the policy, spokesperson Heather Swift said in a statement to NBC News that the U.S. and Mexican governments “100 percent support MPP, which is firmly authorized by bipartisan Congressional statute and has allowed the U.S. to provide the opportunity for due process to more than 57,000 migrants.”“DHS is always looking at ways to expand and strengthen the program to include new locations, populations, and procedures in order to further enhance protections for migrants and ensure safe and lawful migration, while deterring smugglers and traffickers,” she said. “We continually work with Mexico and have provided more than $17 million in aid for safety and security measures. MPP is one of the most important and effective tools we have implemented to confront the crisis on the border and we will continue to strengthen and expand.”The government has also defended the restrictions on asylum for those who cross the border between ports of entry.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal:Hospitals have granted Microsoft, IBM and Amazon the ability to access identifiable patient information under deals to crunch millions of health records, the latest examples of hospitals' growing influence in the data economy. This breadth of access wasn't always spelled out by hospitals and tech giants when the deals were struck. The scope of data sharing in these and other recently reported agreements reveals a powerful new role that hospitals play -- as brokers to technology companies racing into the $3 trillion health-care sector. Rapid digitization of health records in recent years and privacy laws enabling companies to swap patient data have positioned hospitals as a primary arbiter of how such sensitive data is shared. Microsoft and Providence, a Renton, Wash., hospital system with data for about 20 million patient visits a year, are developing cancer algorithms by using doctor's notes in patient medical records. The notes haven't been stripped of personally identifiable information, according to Providence. And an agreement between IBM and Brigham and Women's Hospital, in Boston, to jointly develop artificial intelligence allows the hospital to share personally identifiable data for specific requests, people involved in the agreement said -- though so far the hospital hasn't done so and has no current plans to do so, according to hospital and IBM officials. Microsoft executive Peter Lee in July described how his company would use Providence patient data without identifying information for algorithm development. In a December statement, he said patients' personal health data remains in Providence's control and declined to comment further.As for Amazon, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle, granted certain AWS employees access to health information that identifies individual patients. "The Hutch, a research institution with ties to hospitals, trained and tested Amazon Web Services software designed to read medical notes," the report says. "An AWS spokeswoman said it doesn't use personally identifiable data protected under federal privacy laws to develop or improve its services."

Motel 6 will pay up to $7.6m to Hispanic guests to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit claiming it violated their privacy by regularly providing guest lists to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents.Terms of the preliminary settlement with eight Hispanic plaintiffs – seven from Arizona and one from Washington state – were disclosed in a 2 November filing with the federal court in Phoenix.Motel 6 also agreed to a two-year consent decree barring it from sharing guest data with immigration authorities absent warrants, subpoenas, or threats of serious crime or harm.Motel 6 did not admit liability, and denied engaging in unlawful conduct.The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed the lawsuit after the Phoenix New Times said Ice agents had arrested 20 people over six months at Motel 6s in Arizona, using guest lists to target people by national origin.“Motel 6 fully recognizes the seriousness of the situation and accepts full responsibility for both compensating those who were harmed and taking the necessary steps to ensure that we protect the privacy of our guests,” Motel 6 and MALDEF said in a joint statement.A settlement had been reached in July, but no terms were disclosed at the time.Up to $5.6m will go to Motel 6 guests who faced immigration removal proceedings after their personal information was shared. They are eligible to receive at least $7,500 each.Another $1m was set aside for guests who were questioned or interrogated by immigration authorities, with each guest receiving $1,000.The remaining $1m will go to guests whose information was turned over to immigration authorities from 1 February 2017 to 2 November 2018. They will receive $50 each.Motel 6 will also pay up to $1.3m for the plaintiffs’ legal fees and administrative costs.Motel 6’s management company, G6 Hospitality, has said it ordered its more than 1,400 US and Canadian locations in September to stop voluntarily giving guest lists to Ice agents.

The Department of Justice is investigating the U.S.'s largest tech firms for allegedly monopolistic behavior. Roughly 20 years ago, a similar case threatened to destabilize Microsoft. WSJ explains. By Updated Sept. 6, 2019 5:20 pm ET WASHINGTON—Top state law-enforcement officials from across the country are formally launching antitrust probes into Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google starting next week, further pressuring tech giants already under federal scrutiny over whether their online dominance stifles competition. The moves, involving two large bipartisan coalitions of state attorneys general, add considerable heft to the investigative efforts under way in Washington. As in the government’s antitrust action against Microsoft Corp. two decades... To Read the Full Story Subscribe Sign In Continue reading your article with a WSJ membership View Membership Options

Britain needs the coming break. If the December election provided a splenetic denouement to a dangerously polarised period in public life, Christmas offers a chance to relax and reset the dial of the national mood to a more sustainable level. When politics does return to a divided country, which badly needs to unite and agree on something, the crisis in social care must finally be given the attention it deserves.Over the past two decades, there have been five independent commissions, four government white papers and two green papers addressing the care funding crisis, which becomes more urgent every year as people live longer. No progress has been made, for reasons primarily to do with political cowardice and cynicism. With Brexit no longer consuming all energies, 2020 must be different.Since becoming prime minister, Boris Johnson has shape-shifted, dissembled and obfuscated on social care, as on so many other matters. In the summer, he said he had “a clear plan” that would fix the problem. There was no plan. Instead Mr Johnson has pledged an extra £1bn a year for the sector – the equivalent of a sticking plaster on a gaping wound – and said he will seek cross-party consensus on what to do next.That said, this is now Boris Johnson’s problem to solve. A healthy majority and the prospect of a five-year term leave no room for alibis or finger-pointing across the aisle of the House of Commons. The prime minister has said he will lead a “people’s government” committed to one-nation Conservatism; restoring dignity and security to those elderly members of society who desperately need the state’s help is an obvious starting point. The crisis in both residential and home care has been exacerbated by 10 years of swingeing Conservative cuts to local government funding, which have hit the poorer areas of the country hardest. If Mr Johnson truly intends a new deal for such places, funding adequate social care is one way to show it.The consensus that the prime minister claims to seek is largely already in place. There is broad agreement that public funding for adult social care needs to be significantly increased, and that a balance needs to be struck between individual and collective responsibility for care costs. It is generally acknowledged that there should be a reasonable limit on the lifetime liability of individuals. The Dilnot commission’s proposals, which combine the principle of means-testing with a cap on individual payments, are now almost a decade old. Whether Mr Johnson’s government chooses to return to them or take another route, there can be no more stalling. He must get social care reform done. Topics Social care Opinion Boris Johnson Conservatives editorials