Tag Archives: United States

U.S., Mexico to make statement on Tuesday after sugar talks

A worker looks to sacks filled with sugar at Emiliano Zapata sugar mill in Zacatepec de Hidalgo, in Morelos state, Mexico, March 7, 2015. Picture taken on March 7, 2015. REUTERS/Edgard Garrido

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. and Mexican officials planned an announcement on sugar trade on Tuesday after talks went into overtime this week as negotiators grappled with last-minute U.S. industry demands.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Mexican Minister of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo will make an appearance at 1:45 p.m. at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, the Commerce Department said in a statement.

Ross on Monday extended the deadline for the negotiations by 24 hours to complete “final technical consultations” for a deal.

Sources on both sides of the dispute said the U.S. sugar industry had added new demands outside of the terms agreed on earlier, despite an agreement that had already been struck between the governments.

An agreement in Washington would help avert stiff U.S. duties and Mexican retaliation on imports of American high-fructose corn syrup before wider trade talks expected in August.

A deal also would end a year of wrangling over Mexican sugar exports. The latest talks began in March, two months after President Donald Trump took office vowing a tougher line on trade to protect U.S. industry and jobs.

They are seen as a precursor to the more complex discussions on the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

U.S. Supreme Court to settle major cellphone privacy case

People speak on their cell phones near a blocked off area after a speeding vehicle struck pedestrians in Times Square in New York City, May 18, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan Mcdermid

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Police officers for the first time could be required to obtain warrants to get data on the past locations of criminal suspects based on cellphone use under a major case on privacy rights in the digital age taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal by a man convicted in a series of armed robberies in Ohio and Michigan with the help of past cellphone location data who contends that without a warrant from a court such data amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure under the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

Cellphone location records are becoming increasingly important to police in criminal investigations, with authorities routinely requesting and receiving this information from wireless providers.

Police helped establish that the man at the center of the case, Timothy Carpenter, was near the scene of the robberies at Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores by securing past “cell site location information” from his cellphone carrier that tracked which local cellphone towers relayed his calls.

The case reaches the high court amid growing scrutiny of the surveillance practices of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies amid concern among lawmakers across the political spectrum about civil liberties and police evading warrant requirements.

The legal fight has raised questions about how much companies protect the privacy rights of their customers. The big four wireless carriers, Verizon Communications Inc<VZ.N>, AT&T Inc<T.N>, T-Mobile US Inc<TMUS.O> and Sprint Corp<S.N>, receive tens of thousands of requests a year from law enforcement for what is known as “cell site location information,” or CSLI. The requests are routinely granted.

The Supreme Court has twice in recent years ruled on major cases concerning how criminal law applies to new technology, on each occasion ruling against law enforcement. In 2012, the court held that a warrant is required to place a GPS tracking device on a vehicle. Two years later, the court said police need a warrant to search a cellphone that is seized during an arrest.

The information that law enforcement agencies can obtain from wireless carriers shows which local cellphone towers users connect to at the time they make calls. Police can use historical data to determine if a suspect was in the vicinity of a crime scene or real-time data to track a suspect.

Carpenter’s bid to suppress the evidence failed and he was convicted of six robbery counts. On appeal, the Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his convictions, finding that no warrant was required for the cellphone information.

Civil liberties lawyers have said that police need “probable cause,” and therefore a warrant, in order to avoid constitutionally unreasonable searches.

‘LONGSTANDING PROTECTIONS’

“Because cellphone location records can reveal countless private details of our lives, police should only be able to access them by getting a warrant based on probable cause,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberty Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project who represents Carpenter.

“The time has come for the Supreme Court to make clear that the longstanding protections of the Fourth Amendment apply with undiminished force to these kinds of sensitive digital records,” Wessler added.

But, based on a provision of a 1986 federal law called the Stored Communications Act, the government said it does not need probable cause to obtain customer records. Instead, the government said, prosecutors must show only that there are “reasonable grounds” for the records and that they are “relevant and material” to an investigation.

The case will be heard and decided in the court’s next term, which starts in October and ends in June 2018.

The Trump administration said in court papers the government has a “compelling interest” for acquiring the records without a warrant because the information is particularly useful at the early stage of a criminal investigation.

“Society has a strong interest in both promptly apprehending criminals and exonerating innocent suspects as early as possible during an investigation,” the administration said in a brief.

David LaBahn, president of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said warrants can be obtained quickly from judges but police may have problems getting the evidence needed to show probable cause.

“They may not be able to get over that legal hurdle, so the court couldn’t issue the warrant,” LaBahn said.

Civil liberties groups assert that the 1986 law did not anticipate the way mobile devices now contain a wealth of data on each user.

Steve Vladeck, a national security and constitutional law professor at the University of Texas, said the case will have “enormous implications” over how much data the government can obtain from phone companies and other technology firms about their customers without a warrant.

“Courts and commentators have tried to figure out exactly when individuals will have a continuing expectation of privacy even in data they’ve voluntarily shared with a third party,” Vladeck said. “This case squarely raises that question.”

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Dustin Volz; Editing by Will Dunham)

Southeast Asian nations step up cooperation as Islamic State threat mounts

By Kanupriya Kapoor and Fathin Ungku

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Southeast Asian nations plan to use spy planes and drones to stem the movement of militants across their porous borders, defense officials said at the weekend, as concerns rise over the growing clout of Islamic State in the region.

Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines said they will launch joint air patrols this month at their shared boundaries in the Sulu Sea, in addition to existing maritime patrols.

Authorities in the region have urged greater cooperation to counter the fallout from a raging battle with Islamic State-linked militants in the southern Philippines, the biggest warning yet that the ultra-radical group is building a base in Southeast Asia.

“Our open borders are being exploited by terrorist groups to facilitate personnel and material,” Le Luong Minh, Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) told the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual regional security forum in Singapore.

The region is home to 600 million people and includes Indonesia, which has the world’s highest number of Muslims. Authorities in both Indonesia and Malaysia, also Muslim-majority, have said thousands of their citizens are sympathizers of Islamic State and hundreds are believed to have traveled to Syria to join the extremist group.

Indonesian authorities blamed Islamic State for bombings last month that killed three police officers, the latest in a series of low-level attacks by the militants in the last 17 months.

In recent months, dozens of fighters from Indonesia and Malaysia have crossed from their countries to Mindanao in the southern Philippines, intelligence officials have said, easily passing through waters that have often been lawless and plagued by pirates. Mindanao is the one region in the largely Catholic Philippines to have a significant Muslim minority.

ASEAN made a joint pledge with the United States on the sidelines of the Shangri-La forum to help the Philippines overcome the militant assault in the city of Marawi.

“What featured quite strongly in the U.S.-ASEAN meeting was the pledge by both U.S. and ASEAN members that we stand ready to help the Philippines…whether it’s information, intelligence or otherwise,” said Singaporean Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis (5th L) poses for a picture with ASEAN defence leaders after a meeting on the sidelines of the 16th IISS Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore June 4, 2017.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis (5th L) poses for a picture with ASEAN defence leaders after a meeting on the sidelines of the 16th IISS Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore June 4, 2017. REUTERS/Edgar Su

JOINT PATROLS, INTELLIGENT-SHARING

Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, with the assistance of neighboring Singapore, have carried out joint maritime patrols in the Sulu Sea since last year after a series of kidnappings by the pro-Islamic State Abu Sayyaf group.

“We decided at least these three countries, to avoid being accused of doing nothing…We’re doing joint maritime and air patrols,” said Malaysian Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, adding that the air patrols will be launched on June 19.

“If we do nothing, they get a foothold in this region.”

Indonesian Defence Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu told Reuters his country will consider deploying drones and surveillance planes at its borders with the Philippines.

The measures come amid concerns that fighters may try to escape the military offensive in the Philippines, and flee to neighboring countries.

“We believe the elements involved in the Marawi clashes may try to escape through the southern Philippines and head either for Malaysian or Indonesian waters,” said Malaysia’s counter-terrorism police chief, Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay.

“This is one of their only ways out.”

Among other measures, Singaporean and Malaysian officials said monitoring and intelligence-sharing on specific individuals had been stepped up in the wake of the fighting in Marawi.

Singapore’s Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Sunday urged residents of the wealthy city-state to report friends or family suspected of being radicalised, according to local media.

Security experts have warned that Southeast Asian countries are vulnerable to the spread of Islamic State as it suffers setbacks in Syria and Iraq.

“We’re seeing that, as Islamic State is losing ground on the battlegrounds of the Middle East, they’re pushing their franchise overseas as energetically as they can,” said Nigel Inkster of London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“We’re seeing this in the southern Philippines but there are other countries in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, that are at risk.”

(Additional reporting by Greg Torode in Singapore and Rozanna Latiff in Kuala Lumpur; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Lincoln Feast)

U.S. top court’s Gorsuch says does not share ‘cynicism’ about government

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch participates in taking a new family photo with his fellow justices at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Nate Raymond

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch said on Friday that he does not share what he acknowledged was currently “a lot of cynicism about government and the rule of law.”

Gorsuch, the newest member to the nation’s top court, spoke about the value of an independent judiciary during an evening event at Harvard University that also featured fellow Justice Stephen Breyer.

Gorsuch reflected on how the “government can lose in its own courts and accept the judgement of those courts without an army to back it up.”

He said 95 percent of all U.S. cases are resolved at the trial court level, with few reaching the appellate level or Supreme Court, a fact that he said indicated that litigants were satisfied that justice had been done.

“I know a lot of cynicism about government and the rule of law, but I don’t share it,” he said.

Gorsuch, whose confirmation to the lifetime job restored the court’s conservative majority following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, formally joined the Supreme Court on April 10.

Gorsuch served on the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before Trump nominated him in January. Trump was able to fill the vacancy after Senate Republicans last year refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.

Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and is a member of the liberal wing of the nine-member court, stressed during his comments the value of international values.

“The values you are talking about are very widespread across the world,” he said. “Interest in democracy, human rights and so forth and rule of law.”

(Reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Kim Coghill)

Japan defense minister backs all U.S. options on North Korea, seeks deeper alliance

Japan's Defence Minister Tomomi Inada speaks at the 16th IISS Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore June 3, 2017. REUTERS/Edgar Su

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Japan’s defense minister on Saturday backed the United States using any option to deal with North Korea, including military strikes, and said Tokyo wanted to build a deeper alliance with Washington that could play a regional security role.

“The United States is making clear through both words and deeds that all options are on the table. I strongly support the U.S. position,” Japanese Minister of Defense Tomomi Inada said during a speech at a regional security conference in Singapore.

Pyongyang’s accelerating nuclear and missile programs are stoking fear in nearby Japan and prompting a harder line on North Korea from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

A Japanese helicopter carrier and destroyer are concluding three days of drills with two U.S. aircraft carriers in the Sea of Japan that also included simulated combat sorties between U.S. Navy F-18s and Japanese air force F-15s.

The exercise followed three ballistic missile tests by Pyongyang in as many weeks. The latest on Monday reached an altitude of 120 km (75 miles) before falling into international waters in the Sea of Japan, but inside an exclusive economic zone where Japan has jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of maritime resources.

Apart from using the U.S. alliance to tackle its belligerent neighbor, Japan also wants the military partnership to exert influence on other parts of Asia, including the highly contested South China Sea, Inada said.

China claims almost all the disputed waters, which is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, and its growing military presence has fueled concern in Japan and the West.

“The robust, long-standing Japan-U.S. alliance now functions as a public good that contributes to the peace and stability of the region,” she said.

Beijing often rails against the United States, Japan and other countries for what it sees as interference in the South China Sea, insisting it is for claimant countries involved in disputes to work them out.

Inada also called on European navies to provide “a regular and visible presence” in the region.

A French amphibious assault carrier visited Japan in April after sailing through the South China Sea. Japan’s military later trained with the French force alongside U.S. and British contingents in what sources earlier told Reuters was meant as a show of force aimed at China.

(Reporting by Tim Kelly and Masayuki Kitano; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Lincoln Feast)

U.S. hikes ‘combat power’ in Syria, with eye on Iran-backed militia

A copy of leaflets, with English-language translation, that were dropped by the U.S. military in southern Syria in recent days to advise Iran-backed forces to depart an area near a garrison used by U.S. and U.S.-backed forces as tensions mount are shown in this handout provided June 1, 2017. Courtesy U.S. Defense Department/Handout via REUTERS

By Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. military said on Thursday it had bolstered its “combat power” in southern Syria, warning that it viewed Iran-backed fighters in the area as a threat to nearby coalition troops fighting Islamic State.

The remarks by a Baghdad-based spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State was the latest sign of tension in the region, where the United States has forces at the base around the Syrian town of At Tanf supporting local fighters.

“We have increased our presence and our footprint and prepared for any threat that is presented by the pro-regime forces,” said the spokesman, U.S. Army Colonel Ryan Dillon, referring to Iran-backed forces supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Dillon estimated that a small number of Iran-backed forces had remained inside a so-called “deconfliction” zone meant to ensure the safety of U.S.-led coalition forces since a May 18 U.S. strike on their advancing formation.

Meanwhile, a larger number had been massing directly outside the zone, which was agreed between the United States and Russia, which is supporting Assad.

“We see that as a threat,” Dillon said.

The U.S. military has also dropped about 90,000 leaflets this week warning the fighters inside the zone to depart, one U.S. official said. Reuters had previously reported on the leaflet drop, citing Hammurabi Justice, a website linked to U.S.-backed Syrian rebel forces known as the Maghawir al Thwra group.

A copy of the leaflets provided to Reuters by the Pentagon told the Iran-backed fighters that any movement toward the At Tanf garrison “will be seen as hostile intent and we will defend our forces.”

“You are within an established deconfliction zone, leave the area immediately,” another read.

This southeastern area of the Syrian desert, known as the Badia, has become an important front in Syria’s civil war between Assad, backed by Iran and Shi’ite militias, and rebels seeking to oust him.

They are competing to capture land held by Islamic State, which is retreating as it comes under intense attack in Iraq and along Syria’s Euphrates basin.

Western-backed Syrian rebels said on Wednesday that Russian jets attacked them as they tried to advance against Iran-backed militias.

U.S.-backed rebels took Tanf from Islamic State last year, and regional intelligence sources say they mean to use it as a launchpad to capture Bukamal, a town on Syria’s border with Iraq and an important jihadist supply route.

The coalition’s presence in Tanf, on the Damascus-Baghdad highway, was also meant to stop Iran-backed groups from opening an overland route between Iraq and Syria, the sources say.

Damascus has declared the Badia and Deir al-Zor priorities in its campaign to re-establish control over Syria, which has been shattered by six years of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

As U.S. targets Hezbollah, Lebanon lobbies against more sanctions

A general view shows a street hosting banks and financial institutions, known as Banks street, in Beirut Central District, Lebanon June 2, 2017. REUTERS/Jamal Saidi

By Lisa Barrington

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Moves in Washington to widen financial sanctions on the powerful Shi’ite Hezbollah political group have triggered alarm in Beirut where the government fears major damage to the banking sector that underpins Lebanon’s stability.

Not yet proposed as law, draft amendments to an existing law threatening sanctions against anyone who finances the heavily-armed Iranian-backed Hezbollah in a significant way prompted lobbying trips to Washington in May by worried Lebanese bankers and politicians.

They returned saying that U.S. officials recognized their concerns over draft proposals that would widen the scope of the law by subjecting Hezbollah’s political allies to sanctions or scrutiny, and believing any expansion of the law would be a toned down version of the draft.

But with U.S. President Donald Trump keen to curb the influence of Iran and its Middle Eastern allies in the region, the risks have not gone away for Lebanon, where Hezbollah wields huge influence.

“There’s one question anyone who wants to put pressure on Lebanon should remember: Do you want another failed state on the eastern Mediterranean?” Yassine Jaber, a member of parliament who led a delegation to Washington in mid-May, told Reuters.

“Lebanon is very, very vulnerable economically at the moment,” added Jaber, an independent Shi’ite politician who is aligned with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s Shi’ite Amal movement, which was named as a target for investigation in the draft amendments first reported by Lebanese media in April.

Political and financial figures fear more regulatory pressure could damage the banking sector – the cornerstone of Lebanon’s precarious economy – endangering a financial stability maintained despite the war in neighboring Syria where Hezbollah along with Iran backs President Bashar al-Assad.

Hezbollah, led by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was formed to combat Israel’s 1982-2000 occupation of Lebanon. Its battlefield prowess, extensive social works among Lebanese Shi’ites and its alliance with powerful regional states have helped it secure a dominant role in the country’s politics with seats in parliament and government. It is classified by Washington as a terrorist organization.

MAIN WORRY CORRESPONDENT BANKS

The main worry is that U.S. correspondent banks – which face huge fines if found to be dealing with people or companies sanctioned under anti-terrorism financing legislation – might finally decide Lebanese banks are too risky to do business with.

That would threaten the remittances upon which the highly dollarized Lebanese economy depends. Shortly after the Lebanese press published the draft, President Michel Aoun – a Maronite Christian and political ally of Hezbollah – said as it stands it could cause “great damage to Lebanon and its people”.

The draft proposal would widen legislation to include persons and entities affiliated with Hezbollah, and to report on the finances of senior members of Amal. The wording gave rise to speculation in Lebanon that Aoun’s finances could be also targeted for scrutiny.

Jaber told Reuters the draft – a copy of which was seen by Reuters – was now “outdated”.

But sources familiar with the matter told Reuters there remains a strong desire in Washington to press harder against Iran and Hezbollah, and there are likely other measures being drafted.

A U.S. congressional aide told Reuters that Republican representative and head of the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce, who authored the original 2015 law, is considering additional legislation.

“If they (the banks) aren’t doing business with Hezbollah, they don’t have anything to worry about,” the aide said.

The U.S. Treasury declined to comment on the draft saying it had no formal position.

Jaber said: “The position at the moment is that there might be some congressmen or senators thinking of preparing a bill, but I think our discussions will help in toning it down from what we saw as a draft.”

The United States says Hezbollah is financed not just by Iran but also by networks of Lebanese and international individuals and businesses. The 2015 law, known as HIFPA, aimed to cut off these funding routes.

TRIGGERED TENSIONS

Its implementation triggered domestic tensions in Lebanon. Worried about losing their relationship with correspondent banks, Lebanese banks began closing some customers’ accounts, including Shi’ites who were not Hezbollah members.

Critics of the law in Lebanon say it resulted in the unfair targeting of the Shi’ite population. Charity networks run by Shi’ite clerics were hit when some of their accounts closed for a time.

The law led to an unprecedented dispute between Hezbollah and the central bank which asked all banks to comply with the legislation. Last June, a bomb was set off at the headquarters of leading Lebanese bank Blom Bank, causing no casualties.

Since taking office in January, Trump has imposed new sanctions on individuals and businesses involved with Iran’s ballistic missile program and with Hezbollah.

Ali Hamdan, an Amal member who went on the lobbying trip to Washington, echoed Jaber, saying the leaked draft was outdated and could be forgotten. “An understanding was reached,” said Hamdan, media adviser to Berri. “[We] told them: more, wider, generalized sanctions are a recipe to destroy Lebanon.”

The Association of Banks in Lebanon (ABL) dispatched its own delegation in May and met with a “good response” in Washington and from U.S. correspondent banks in New York.

ABL head Joseph Torbey made the case that existing legislation was sufficient and that the new draft was open to “inappropriate interpretations”.

(Reporting by Lisa Barrington; Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington; Editing by Tom Perry and Peter Millership)

Signs of the time: Fake U.S. immigration control posters found in Washington

Fake government flyers urging Washington residents to turn in illegal immigrants, which city and federal officials denounced as inciting fear, are posted in Washington, U.S. June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Ian Simpson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Residents of at least one Washington D.C. neighborhood woke up on Thursday to find the area plastered with posters urging them to turn in illegal immigrants, but federal authorities denied putting up the signs and denounced them as inciting fear.

The bogus posters bearing the seal of the Department of Homeland Security warned about criminal offenses related to harboring or helping people in the country illegally, and gave phone numbers to report information about them to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“If you see something, say something,” said the flyer, titled “Sanctuary City Neighborhood Public Notice” and written on the ICE letterhead.

Washington is among dozens of so-called sanctuary cities that offer safe haven to illegal immigrants, and local police are under orders not to cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport residents. An attempt by the administration of President Donald Trump to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities has been blocked by a court.

Mayor Muriel Bowser said on Twitter that the posters were aimed at scaring residents of the heavily Democratic city and that she had ordered police and the Public Works Department to remove them.

“Tear it down! DC is a sanctuary city,” she said.

Carissa Cutrell, an ICE spokeswoman, said the agency had not put up the posters and called them dangerous and irresponsible.

“Any person who actively incites panic or fear of law enforcement is doing a disservice to the community, endangering public safety and the very people they claim to support and represent,” she said in an email.

Cutrell said she had no information about who might have put up the posters or whether the number of telephone calls to her agency had increased.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson in Washington and by Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Trump delays moving U.S. embassy to Jerusalem despite campaign pledge

FILE PHOTO - The front of the U.S. embassy is seen in Tel Aviv, Israel January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Amir Cohen/File Photo

By Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump signed a temporary order on Thursday to keep the U.S. embassy in Israel in Tel Aviv instead of relocating it to Jerusalem, despite his campaign pledge to go ahead with the controversial move.

After months of fierce debate within his administration, Trump chose to continue his predecessors’ policy of signing a six-month waiver overriding a 1995 law requiring that the embassy be transferred to Jerusalem, an action that would have complicated his efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

The White House insisted, however, that the decision, which is sure to disappoint Israel’s U.S. supporters, did not mean Trump was abandoning the goal of eventually shifting the embassy to Jerusalem. But a U.S. official said no timetable has been set.

“The question is not if that move happens, but only when,” the White House said in a statement.

With a deadline looming, Trump made the decision to defer action on the embassy “to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests,” the White House said.

Palestinian leaders, Arab governments and Western allies had urged Trump not to proceed with the embassy relocation, which would have upended decades of U.S. policy by granting what would have been seen as de facto U.S. recognition of Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem as its capital.

“Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.

Taking a harder stance, Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, a far-right member of Netanyahu’s coalition, said delaying the move would “damage the prospect of a lasting peace by nurturing false expectations among the Palestinians regarding the division of Jerusalem, which will never happen.”

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a close aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Trump’s decision “reaffirms the seriousness of the United States in its efforts to achieve peace.”

NO MENTION OF EMBASSY

Trump avoided any public mention of a potential embassy move during his visit to Israel and the West Bank in May. Despite that, most experts are skeptical of Trump’s chances for achieving a peace deal that had eluded other U.S. presidents.

The status of Jerusalem is one of the major stumbling blocks. Israel captured Arab East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it, a move not recognized internationally. Israel considers all of the city its indivisible capital.

The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Jerusalem is home to sites considered holy by the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions.

Successive U.S. administrations have insisted that Jerusalem’s status must be decided in negotiations.

On the campaign trail, Trump’s pro-Israel rhetoric raised expectations that he would act quickly to move the embassy. But after he took office in January, the issue lost momentum as he met Arab leaders who warned it would be hard to rejuvenate long-stalled peace efforts unless he acted as a fair mediator.

Some of Trump’s top aides pushed for him to keep his campaign promise to satisfy the pro-Israel, right-wing base that helped him win the presidency. The State Department, however recommended against an embassy move, one U.S. official said.

“No one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the president’s strong support for Israel,” according to the White House statement on the signing of the waiver.

(Additional reporting by Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Bernadette Baum and James Dalgleish)

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban

A picture of the travel advisory page of Qatar Airways advising passengers bound for the United States from seven newly banned majority Muslim countries that they need to have either a U.S. green card or diplomatic visa, January 28, 2017 in London, Britain. Picture taken January 28, 2017. REUTERS/Russell Boyce

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his plan to temporarily ban travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.

In deciding whether to allow the ban to go into effect, the nine justices are set to weigh whether Trump’s harsh election campaign rhetoric can be used as evidence that the order was intended to discriminate against Muslims.

The administration filed emergency applications with the nine high court justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump’s March 6 order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. government implements stricter visa screening.

The move comes after the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge’s ruling blocking the order.

The administration also filed a separate appeal in that case.

“We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the legal groups challenging the ban, tweeted in response: “We’ve beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again.”

At least five votes are needed on the nine-justice court in order to grant a stay. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy – a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s four liberals – the frequent swing vote. Another of the court’s conservatives, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed by Trump this year.

If the government’s emergency requests are granted, the ban would go into effect immediately.

The court first has to act on whether to grant the emergency applications, which could happen within a fortnight. Then, the justices will decide whether to hear the government’s full appeal. The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case but is likely to due to its importance and the fact that the request is being made by the U.S. government.

The Justice Department has asked the court to expedite the case so that the justices could hear it at the beginning of their next term, which starts in October. That means, if the court allows the ban to go into effect, the final decision would be issued long after the 90 days has elapsed.

In the court filings, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall highlighted the unprecedented nature of courts second-guessing the president on national security and immigration.

“This order has been the subject of passionate political debate. But whatever one’s views, the precedent set by this case for the judiciary’s proper role in reviewing the president’s national-security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this Order, and this constitutional moment,” he wrote.

In its 10-3 ruling, the appeals court in Virginia said the challengers, including refugee groups and others represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violated the U.S. Constitution’s bar against favoring or disfavoring a particular religion.

The government had argued that the court should not take into account Trump’s comments during the 2016 U.S. presidential race since he made them before he took office on Jan. 20. But the appeals court rejected that view, saying they shed light on the motivations behind Trump’s order.

During the campaign, Trump campaign called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

His administration has argued that the travel ban is needed to prevent terrorism in the United States.

Federal courts in both Maryland and Hawaii issued rulings suspending key parts of the ban. The appeals court in Virginia upheld the Maryland ruling. A San Francisco-based appeals court is currently considering the Hawaii case.

The administration is asking the Supreme Court to throw out the injunction imposed in both cases.

The March ban was Trump’s second effort to implement travel restrictions on people from several Muslim-majority countries through an executive order. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports and in major U.S. cities before it was blocked by courts.

The second order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Sue Horton, Christian Schmollinger, Shr Navaratnam and Michael Perry)