Beijing has suspected that Washington might agree to put aside its nuclear disagreements with North Korea and accept the North’s nuclear capabilities if it served to contain China, he said.

Mr. Wang could have delivered a careful message, reminding the North that China was its true friend despite the rough patch in the past six years since Mr. Kim came to power, said Xia Yafeng, a Chinese historian at Long Island University.

“Wang Yi had a mission: to coordinate with the North Koreans on how to talk with Trump,” he said. “He can advise the North Koreans, but he cannot threaten them. He may say: ‘Be careful when you talk with Trump. We will always side with you.’”

China grudgingly went along with Washington’s demand last year that it support United Nations sanctions meant to deny the North of critical foreign currency from sales of coal, minerals, seafood and garments.

But Beijing’s desire to punish North Korea’s economy is probably wavering, Mr. Zhao said.

“I can imagine China taking additional measures to further improve ties with North Korea,” Mr. Zhao said. These would include working to connect North Korea to roads and rail networks in northeast Asia, and embracing the North in its Belt and Road Initiative.

There are already signs that China is trying to loosen some of the economic restrictions. Businessmen in the area of northeastern China that borders North Korea say that some North Korean workers are returning to China on short-term visas, and that they expect trade to pick up soon.

Photo

“I can imagine China already starting studies into options to increase economic cooperation with North Korea in areas that would not violate existing United Nations Security Council resolutions,” Mr. Zhao said.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Beijing was miffed and surprised at being pointedly excluded from several items in the joint declaration that North and South Korea issued last Friday at the end of their summit meeting.

The two Koreas said they would start talks with Washington to negotiate a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, which ravaged the peninsula from 1950 to 1953.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Thank you for subscribing.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

View all New York Times newsletters.

• See Sample
• Manage Email Preferences
• Not you?
• Privacy Policy
• Opt out or contact us anytime

The declaration mentioned “trilateral or quadrilateral” talks. If the talks were “trilateral” that would include North and South Korea and the United States but not China, which sent millions of troops to fight on North Korea’s side during the war. China withdrew all its troops in 1958.

“The Chinese heard it was North Korea that got the talks to be broadened to quadrilateral,” said Paul Haenle, director of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy.

Beyond that, China was not invited to send observers to the planned destruction of the Punggye-ri nuclear test site in North Korea at the end of this month. Mr. Kim said he would invite South Korean and American experts to witness the shutdown, a gesture that American officials said would have little impact on the North’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

“The test site is close to the Chinese border,” Mr. Haenle said. “The Chinese were upset because China is a nuclear power, South Korea is not.”

Despite these snubs, the visit of the foreign minister, Mr. Wang, was symbolically important, Mr. Xia said.

In the heyday of the China-North Korea relationship when Mr. Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, was in power, top-level visits between the two countries were frequent. The grandfather visited China many times, Mr. Xia said. Even Kim Jong-un’s father, Kim Jong-il, made seven trips between 2000 and 2011.

The parade of visits stopped after the young Mr. Kim came to power and derailed the relationship to China by ordering the killing of senior Korean officials close to Beijing.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Kim made a surprise visit to Beijing in late March, apparently on his own initiative, maneuvering in a way that made him look less like a supplicant and more like an equal.

Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Kim is likely to take place in the Demilitarized Zone at the border between South and North Korea, Mr. Trump has said. Some diplomats are speculating that the two leaders may meet on the northern side of the zone, drawing a distinction with the summit meeting last week on the South Korean side, and satisfying Mr. Trump’s desire for drama.

China’s president, Xi Jinping, is expected to go to Pyongyang after the Trump-Kim meeting. One of the foreign minister’s duties was to confirm details of Mr. Xi’s visit, Chinese analysts said.

Continue reading the main story

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein took aim Tuesday at Republican lawmakers who have drafted articles of impeachment against him, saying that he would not comment on documents “that nobody has the courage to put their name on” and asserting that he will not change his behavior in the face of threats.

“I think they should understand by now that the Department of Justice is not going to be extorted,” Rosenstein said. “We’re going to do what’s required by the rule of law, and any kind of threats that anybody makes are not going to affect the way we do our job.”

Rosenstein’s comments came at the end of a wide-ranging conversation at the Newseum in Washington to commemorate Law Day, which happened to fall a day after The Washington Post reported that conservative allies of President Trump had drafted impeachment articles against the Justice Department’s No. 2 official.

Members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus — led by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) — have been in a long-running feud with Rosenstein and the Justice Department over what they see as a failure to turn over documents on a number of controversial topics, including the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

In recent days, they finalized a draft of the impeachment articles, which criticize Rosenstein for approving the warrant to monitor Page, and then failing to turn over requested documents.

[Trump-allied House conservatives draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein as ‘last resort’]

In a statement, Meadows said Rosenstein’s “response to the draft articles of impeachment is reminiscent of our interactions with him over the past few months: a lot of rhetoric with little facts.”

“If he believes being asked to do his job is ‘extortion,’ then Rod Rosenstein should step aside and allow us to find a new Deputy Attorney General — preferably one who is interested in transparency,” Meadows said.

The Freedom Caucus is one of the more influential blocs in Congress, though to impeach Rosenstein, its members would need the buy-in of House or Judiciary Committee leadership, and then they would have to win over a majority of members. Removing Rosenstein would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate — which would be nigh impossible.

Critics see the move as an effort to pressure the Justice Department to turn over documents it shouldn’t, or detract from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. Rosenstein supervises that probe, because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from it. The deputy attorney general has in recent weeks become a particular focus of the president’s rage.

Rosenstein for the most part avoided addressing that and other controversial topics Tuesday.

Asked in tangential ways about Trump’s recent threats to get more involved at the Justice Department, in part over his anger at Mueller’s probe, Rosenstein insisted that Justice Department officials were complying with the rule of law and that “there are no such conflicts” between that and demands by the president.

He refused to put a timeline on Mueller’s probe, but said of all investigations, “we recognize the need to move them as expeditiously as possible.”

Rosenstein declined to address whether he believed a sitting president could be indicted, noting only that Justice Department lawyers had opined in past administrations that the president could not.

Rosenstein’s most substantive comments, though, came on the Justice Department’s feuding with several congressional committees over document requests. Rosenstein noted that, throughout American history, the Justice Department had sparred with legislators wanting documents, and while there was “actually not a constitutional basis for oversight,” he found legislators’ role to ferret out misconduct important.

He said some of his predecessors had refused to turn over any FBI documents, though the courts had in past disputes instructed the two sides to “try to compromise.”

He said he would work out disputes with Congress on a “case by case” basis. In recent weeks, the department had seemed to reach agreements with several committee leaders, including those in charge of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees. The committees are seeking materials on a range of topics, including the warrant to surveil Page and the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

[Justice Dept. gives Nunes access to document on Russia probe’s origins, cooling his threat to impeach its leaders]

“If we were to just open our doors to allow Congress to come and rummage through the files, that would be a serious infringement on the separation of powers, and it might resolve a dispute today, but it would have negative repercussions in the long run, and we have a responsibility to defend the institution,” Rosenstein said.

Asked about the articles of impeachment, Rosenstein quipped, “they can’t even resist leaking their own drafts,” and then compared the document to one the Justice Department seeks in charging someone with a crime.

“We have to affix our signature to the charging document,” he said, adding later, “I just don’t have anything to say about documents like that, that nobody has the courage to put their name on, and that they leak in that way.”

Rosenstein also on Tuesday addressed a question that has long vexed members of the D.C. press corps: Should his last name be pronounced Rosen-steen or Rosen-stine?

“So, there’s no right answer to that question,” Rosenstein said, to laughter. “My family, my father, pronounces it ‘stine.’ That’s how I pronounce it. But I actually have relatives who pronounce it ‘steen,’ so I’ll answer to either one.”

They came knocking because of loose talk about the president’s hair.

On Feb. 3, 2017, Donald Trump’s longtime bodyguard, a Trump Organization lawyer and a third man allegedly pushed into the Park Avenue offices of Harold Bornstein, according to an account Trump’s former physician gave NBC News on Tuesday.

Just days before the visit, Bornstein, an Italian-speaking gastroenterologist with his own shoulder-length locks and funky eyewear, had spilled to the New York Times about his most famous patient. Bornstein slipped to the Times that Trump took Propecia, a medication that stimulates hair growth. Bornstein confided to the paper he, too, took the drug. “He has all his hair,” the doctor told the Times. “I have all my hair.”

Two days later, the men from Trump — including security head Keith Schiller and attorney Alan Garten — arrived to reclaim all the files Bornstein had on the president. According to the doctor, they spent 25 to 30 minutes hoovering up the original copies of Trump’s medical records — retaliation, he intimated this week, for speaking to the press. “It created a lot of chaos,” Bornstein told the network.

“I feel raped — that’s how I feel,” the doctor dramatically said. “Raped, frightened, and sad. I couldn’t believe anybody was making a big deal out of a drug to grow his hair that seemed to be so important. And it certainly is not a breach of medical trust to tell somebody they take Propecia to grow their hair. What’s the matter with that?”

Trump’s New York inner circle often seems stocked with blaring characters tuned to the president’s own unique frequencies. There was Sam Nunberg, a fast-gabbing political operative. Omarosa Manigault Newman, a merciless reality television contestant. Michael Cohen, the tough-guy lawyer. Unbending loyalty knit them all to the man whose name was plastered on the building.

But as Trump’s tenure in the White House grinds on, squeezed by a special prosecutor, low approval ratings and the legal fallout from his alleged relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels, each of those old guard loyalists has slipped away. Nunberg repudiated the president in a bizarre blitz of cable news appearances. Manigault used a stint on “Celebrity Big Brother” to knock the administration. And Cohen, Trump’s attack-dog defender, is now the subject of a criminal investigation and featured in an unflattering light in the National Enquirer.

Bornstein, who served as Trump’s physician for more than three decades, is the latest longtime Trump figure to publicly split from the president. And the repudiation did not stop with the doctor’s revelation about the February 2017 visit. On Tuesday, Bornstein told CNN he did not write the 2015 glowing review of the president’s health, a typo-pocked assessment that brought the doctor scrutiny.

“He dictated that whole letter,” Bornstein told CNN. “I didn’t write that letter.”

Bornstein did not respond to a request for comment.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders described the visit to retrieve the records as “standard operating procedure for a new president.”

For Bornstein, ministering to Trump’s health has been a family business.

Bornstein’s father, Jacob Bornstein, served as Trump’s personal physician until 1980. The elder Bornstein’s life was “a tribute to the uniquely American concept of ‘anything is possible’ if you are born here,” according to his 2010 obituary. The son of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Jacob graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard University and later earned a degree at the Harvard Medical School. He served in the U.S. Army during World War II before setting up a private practice in New York City.

Harold Bornstein followed his father into medicine, attending Tufts University School of Medicine after Tufts University in Boston. According to a 2016 article in STAT, he cut a flamboyant figure across campus, wearing his hair long and composing poetry under the pseudonym “Count Harold.”

“He was irreverent. He sat mostly near the back of the room — where most of us did — and paid varying degrees of attention to what was being said at the time,” a former classmate told STAT.

Throughout his career, Bornstein has been hit with three malpractice lawsuits, according to the Daily Beast. Two of the cases involved allegations of overmedicating that led to a patients death, the website reported. “He prescribed for her medication disproportionate for her physical weight and she ended up falling and dying,” one family members of a Bornstein patient told the Daily Beast. “I’m not saying it is because of him, but he contributed to her death.”

Each complaint was settled before a trial, and Bornstein admitted no liability.

Last February, Bornstein told the New York Times he treated Trump each year with annual checkups and colonoscopies. Trump’s first and third wives were also the doctor’s patients, and he treated Trump’s second wife occasionally. “I am probably the only person in the world who has every phone number for him and all the wives,” Bornstein told the Times.

Bornstein first came to national attention after Trump’s campaign released the December 2015 letter signed by the doctor attesting to the candidate’s health. The breathless praise immediately raised eyebrows and questions.

The letter said that Trump’s laboratory results were “astonishingly excellent.” The candidate’s “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary.” It concluded: “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

The note drew scrutiny, and Bornstein eventually admitted he dashed off the letter in five minutes while a limo from Trump waited outside the doctor’s Manhattan office. “I was just rushed for time,” the doctor told CNN in 2016. “I had people to see.”

This week, Bornstein offered a drastically different account of how the health report was compiled. According to a report from CNN, Bornstein said the letter was put together while he was on the phone with Trump. The patient offered up the language he wanted Bornstein to write, he now claims.

“[Trump] dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn’t put in there,” Bornstein told the network. “That’s black humor, that letter . . . It’s like the movie ‘Fargo.’ It takes the truth and moves it in a different direction.”

Bornstein, who once had told Trump’s personal secretary Rhona Graff he hoped to be the White House physician, said this week that his comments to the Times in February squashed that possibility. “So you wanted to be the White House doctor? Forget it, you’re out,” Graff told Bornstein after the records were taken from his office, the doctor told NBC News.

An 8-by-10 picture of Bornstein grinning with his famous client once hung prominently on the doctor’s wall. According to NBC News, the photo is now lying unseen on a bookshelf. Bornstein claims Trump’s men told him to remove the photo of happier times.

More from Morning Mix:

Georgia governor candidate aims gun at teen in campaign ad. ‘Get over it,’ he tells critics.

Paintball shootings in city streets are causing injuries and alarming police

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says a landmark nuclear deal with Iran was “built on lies”, after Israel claimed to have proof of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Pompeo said documents revealed by Israel’s prime minister were authentic.

Analysts say they show nothing new, highlighting that concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions led to the 2015 deal.

US President Donald Trump, who opposes the accord, has until 12 May to decide whether to abandon it or not.

Other Western powers, including signatories Britain and France, say Iran has been abiding by the deal and it should be kept.

• Could the nuclear deal collapse?
• Why the bomb is back

What is Iran accused of?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday accused Iran of conducting a secret nuclear weapons programme, dubbed Project Amad, and said it had continued to pursue nuclear weapons knowledge after the project was shuttered in 2003.

That followed the revelation in 2002 by an exiled Iranian opposition group that Iran was constructing secret nuclear sites in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran was a signatory.

Mr Netanyahu presented what he said was evidence of thousands of “secret nuclear files” that showed Iran had lied about its nuclear ambitions before the deal was signed in 2015.

Tension between the long-standing enemies has grown steadily since Iran built up its military presence in Syria, which lies to the north-east of Israel.

Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons, and agreed three years ago to curb its nuclear energy programme in return for the lifting of sanctions.

The Israeli prime minister did not provide evidence that Iran had violated the accord since it went into effect in early 2016. But he insisted that Project Amad had continued at the Iranian defence ministry – citing the head of the programme as saying: “Special activities will be carried out under the title of scientific know-how developments.”

Mr Netanyahu said he had shared the files with the US, and they would be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been tasked with investigating Iran’s nuclear past.

What does the US say?

The new secretary of state said the documents were proof “beyond any doubt” that “the Iranian regime was not telling the truth”.

“Iran hid a vast atomic archive from the world and from the IAEA – until today,” Mr Pompeo added.

Mr Trump, who has been vocal about his opposition to the Obama-era deal, said he had viewed part of Mr Netanyahu’s presentation and said the situation was “not acceptable”.

He said he would make a decision on whether to retain the deal in the next 12 days.

What other reaction has there been?

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the move by Mr Netanyahu was a “childish” stunt to influence Mr Trump’s decision on whether the US should stick with the nuclear deal.

He said the documents were a rehash of old allegations already dealt with by the IAEA. A former chief inspector at the agency told the Guardian newspaper his department had seen some of the documentation presented by the Israeli prime minister as early as 2005.

Olli Heinonen told the newspaper his department had come to the conclusion that evidence of Project Amad was credible, but that substantial work on it had ceased in 2003.

A spokesman for the UK government, a signatory of the deal, said it would continue to back the deal, adding: “We have never been naive about Iran and its nuclear intentions.”

Rob Malley, who was on the Iran negotiating team under the Obama administration, played down the allegations, saying they were “nothing new”.

Skip Twitter post by @Rob_Malley

For those who have followed the Iranian nuclear file, there is nothing new in Bibi’s presentation. All it does is vindicate need for the nuclear deal

But the Israeli prime minister has an audience of one: Trump

And he’s unfortunately unlikely to reach the same conclusion.

— Rob Malley (@Rob_Malley) April 30, 2018

End of Twitter post by @Rob_Malley

Meanwhile, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said the documents have not put into question Iran’s compliance with the 2015 deal and said they should be analysed by the IAEA.

How did Israel acquire the documents?

Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters on Monday that Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad had obtained 55,000 pages of evidence and a further 55,000 files on 183 CDs relating to Project Amad.

A senior Israeli official told the New York Times that the agency first discovered the warehouse in southern Tehran in February 2016, and put the building under surveillance.

In January, intelligence agents managed to break into the property in the middle of the night, remove the original documents and smuggle them back into Israel the same night, the official told the paper.

How is the 2015 deal meant to work?

The agreement signed between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain lifted crippling economic sanctions in return for curbs on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Under the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran is committed to slashing the number of its centrifuges, which are machines used to enrich uranium.

It is also meant to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium drastically and not enrich remaining uranium to the level needed to produce nuclear weapons.

The number of centrifuges installed at Iran’s Natanz and Fordo sites was cut drastically soon after the deal while tonnes of low-enriched uranium were shipped to Russia.

Furthermore, monitors from the IAEA have been able to carry out snap inspections at Iranian nuclear sites.

• Iran nuclear deal: Key details

Why is Trump unhappy about it?

The US president has not held back in voicing his opposition to the deal, which he has described as the “worst ever”.

He has twice already refused to certify to Congress that Iran is complying with the agreement, and warned that the US would withdraw completely on 12 May – the next deadline for waiving sanctions – unless European signatories to the deal and Congress addressed his concerns.

He is unhappy that it only limited Iran’s nuclear activities for a fixed period and had failed to stop the development of ballistic missiles.

He also said it had handed Iran a $100bn (£72bn) windfall that it used “as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression” across the Middle East.

• What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?

It is not clear whether Mr. Mueller knows something specific about Mr. Trump’s reaction to these interviews, but the question shows that Mr. Mueller is keenly interested in how Mr. Trump responded to each step of his investigation.

• What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?

Mr. Comey said that Mr. Trump called twice to ask him to say publicly that he was not under F.B.I. investigation. In the second call, Mr. Comey said, the president added: “I have been very loyal to you, very loyal. We had that thing, you know.”

• What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?

While the White House ultimately said Mr. Comey was fired for breaking with Justice Department policy and discussing the Clinton investigation, Mr. Trump expressed no such qualms in an interview with Ms. Bartiromo of Fox Business Network. “Director Comey was very, very good to Hillary Clinton, that I can tell you,” he said. “If he weren’t, she would be, right now, going to trial.”

• What did you think and do about Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017, testimony?

In this Senate appearance, Mr. Comey described his handling of the Clinton investigation in detail. Mr. Comey was fired soon after. Mr. Mueller’s question suggests he wants to know why Mr. Trump soured.

• Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?

Over the past several months, Mr. Mueller has asked White House officials for the back story, and whether the public justification was accurate. He will be able to compare Mr. Trump’s answers to what he has learned elsewhere.

• What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?

The day after Mr. Comey’s firing, Mr. Trump met with Russian officials in the Oval Office. There, The Times revealed, Mr. Trump suggested he had fired Mr. Comey because of the pressure from the Russia investigation.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

The confrontation stems from the president’s decision in March to slap tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on imported aluminum. Trump justified the action by saying it was needed to protect American metal producers from unfair competition and bolster national security. But the announcement, which followed an intense internal White House debate, triggered harsh criticism from Democrats and some Republicans and roiled financial markets.

At the time, Trump excluded several vital trading partners — the European Union, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Brazil — from the tariffs.

That meant the steel tariff covered just 30 percent of all imports, according to Oxford Economics. If all the exemptions were ended, it would have deepened the impact of the tariffs on American companies that use steel and potentially affect financial markets. Stock prices fell nearly 2 percent when the tariffs were announced.

Two people familiar with the process said the Trump administration had been considering whether to provide a short-term extension of the exemptions to allow for more time to review the countries’ efforts to secure permanent exemptions.

One of the officials said the U.S. trade representative has been overseeing the process for all of the countries except for the European Union, whose tariffs are being evaluated by the Commerce Department.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

The EU and others had been asked to spell out what limits they could accept on the amount of steel they export to the United States, how they would address the issue of excess production of steel and aluminum and how they would support the U.S. before international bodies like the World Trade Organization. Security relationships with the U.S. have also been part of the criteria.

South Korea agreed to limit its exports to the United States as part of broader discussions involved in updating its bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. and was granted a permanent exemption.

China, Japan and Russia haven’t received exemptions from the duties. That will likely reduce steel shipments from those countries over time. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said late Friday that quotas on imports from Europe and other countries are necessary so imports from those countries don’t simply replace Chinese imports. The goal of the tariffs is to reduce total steel imports and boost U.S. production, Ross said.

“If you let everybody back out of the tariff, and you let them out of any kind of quota, how would you ever reduce the imports here?” Ross asked at a conference of business journalists. Ross is set to discuss the issue Monday with EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom.

Germany, the EU’s largest steel exporter to the U.S., accounted for about 5 percent of U.S. steel imports last year. South Korea made up the largest share, shipping about 13 percent of U.S. imports, according to an American Iron and Steel Institute analysis of government data.

The EU has compiled a list of retaliatory tariffs worth about $3.5 billion it will impose if its steel and aluminum isn’t exempted.

European leaders have resisted the idea of a quota. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a statement Sunday that she discussed the issue with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May after returning from a White House visit Friday.

The three European leaders “agreed that the U.S. ought not to take any trade measures against the European Union,” which is “resolved to defend its interests within the multilateral trade framework,” Merkel’s statement said.

In her meeting with Trump, Merkel said, she saw little progress in obtaining permanent exemptions. “The decision lies with the president,” she said Friday.

A United Kingdom spokesperson called Monday’s postponement “positive” and said, “We will continue to work closely with our EU partners and the U.S. government to achieve a permanent exemption, ensuring our important steel and aluminum industries are safeguarded.”

In a separate trade battle with China, the United States has threatened to impose tariffs on $150 billion of Chinese goods in retaliation for what it argues are Beijing’s unfair trade practices and its requirement that U.S. companies turn over technology in exchange for access to its market. The White House also wants China to agree to reduce its $375 billion goods trade surplus with the U.S.

China has said it would subject $50 billion of U.S. goods to tariffs if the U.S. taxes its products. Trump has announced that an administration delegation led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and trade adviser Peter Navarro will visit Beijing for negotiations on Thursday and Friday this week.

In addition to Mnuchin, Lighthizer, Ross and Navarro, the group will include economic adviser Larry Kudlow, U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad and Everett Eissenstat, deputy assistant to the president for International Economic Affairs.

“We’re going to have very frank discussions,” Mnuchin in an interview broadcast Monday on Fox Business.

Most analysts, however, think it’s unlikely the talks will reach permanent agreements and will more likely mark the start of longer-term negotiations.

AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger contributed to this report.

Amber Rudd has resigned as home secretary, saying she “inadvertently misled” MPs over targets for removing illegal immigrants.

The Windrush scandal had heaped pressure on Ms Rudd, who faced renewed criticism after saying she did not know about Home Office removals targets.

Her successor is expected to be announced within hours by Theresa May, who was “very sorry” to see Ms Rudd go.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said Ms Rudd had “done the right thing”.

Ms Abbott added that the “architect of this crisis” – the prime minister – must come before the Commons to explain “whether she knew that Amber Rudd was misleading Parliament and the public last week”.

• Amber Rudd resigns: Live reaction
• What went wrong for Amber Rudd?
• Rudd’s resignation letter in full
• Rudd’s resignation dominates front pages

Ms Rudd told MPs last week the Home Office did not have targets for removing illegal immigrants, but on Sunday the Guardian published a letter in which Ms Rudd set out her “ambitious but deliverable” aim to deport 10% more illegal immigrants over the “next few years” to Theresa May.

Ms Rudd is the fourth person forced to resign from the cabinet in the last six months – following Sir Michael Fallon, Priti Patel and Damian Green.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling denied the government was in chaos, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today the spate of recent resignations were “unwanted noise” but there were always “up and downs” in politics.

Rudd’s resignation letter to PM

Image copyright
PA

Ms Rudd, who had been due to make a Commons statement on Monday afternoon, telephoned the prime minister on Sunday evening to tell her of the decision amid intensifying opposition demands for her to quit.

In her resignation letter, Ms Rudd said she took “full responsibility” for the fact she was not aware of “information provided to (her) office which makes mention of targets”.

In response, Mrs May said she believed Ms Rudd had given her evidence to the Commons “in good faith” but that she understood her decision to resign and take “responsibility for inadvertently misleading the home affairs select committee”.

She should “take great pride” in what she achieved at the Home Office, Mrs May added.

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg’s view

Image copyright
Getty Images

An inevitable resignation? Certainly there has been a mismatch between what she told MPs last week and the evidence that emerged.

In a different time, and with a minister with enemies, she’d likely have been out on Friday.

This time the Tory party was fighting hard to keep her. But beyond the mess-ups, perhaps part of the issue was also that she was not necessarily in tune with her predecessor’s attitude on immigration – the Home Office’s most politically charged brief.

Read more from Laura

How the immigration ‘targets’ row unfolded

Image copyright
PA

The controversy began when it emerged that some migrants from Commonwealth countries, who were encouraged to settle in the UK from the late 1940s to 1973, were being wrongly declared illegal immigrants.

Ms Rudd came under fire for the government’s treatment of these people – known as the Windrush generation – and their relatives and the wider impact of its “hostile environment” policy designed to deter illegal immigration.

She told MPs last Wednesday there were no removals targets for illegal immigrants – comments subsequently contradicted by a 2015 inspection report. She later admitted “local” targets for voluntary removals had been set but she told the Commons on Thursday she had not been aware of them.

• Who are the Windrush generation?
• Windrush pledges ‘must be written into law’
• Reality Check: Has the ‘hostile environment’ worked?

But the Guardian reported a June 2017 memo from an official, copied to Ms Rudd, that referred to targets. The newspaper also published a letter at the weekend, from January 2017, where Ms Rudd told Theresa May about plans to restructure her department and increase removals “over the next few years”.

Sources told the BBC that on Saturday and Sunday Ms Rudd and her officials did a thorough search of all documents and found other references to operational targets which she felt she should have been aware of.

The reaction to the loss of May’s ‘human shield’

Conservative MPs have been paying tribute to their colleague.

Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom called Ms Rudd “honest and principled” while Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said she was a “huge talent” who would “no doubt be back in Cabinet soon”.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said she had done “a great job during last year’s terrorist attacks and cares deeply about the people she serves”.

Skip Twitter post by @michaelgove

I’m so sad about Amber’s departure from government – she was a huge asset – brave, principled, thoughtful, humane, considerate and always thinking of the impact of policy on the vulnerable – I hope Amber will be back soon – we need her

— Michael Gove (@michaelgove) April 29, 2018

End of Twitter post by @michaelgove

Labour MP David Lammy said the home secretary had quit because she “didn’t know what was going on” in her department and she had clearly “lost the confidence” of her officials.

He added: “The real issue is the hostile environment policy that caused this crisis in the first place. That policy must now be reviewed.”

Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable told the BBC Ms Rudd had “clearly jumped before she was pushed” while Green Party co-leader Carole Lucas said the PM had “lost her human shield and now looks very exposed”.

And UKIP’s former leader Nigel Farage tweeted: “Now that Amber Rudd has resigned we need a Home Secretary that supports Brexit.”

Who could succeed Rudd?

Image copyright
PA

Theresa May is expected to name Amber Rudd’s successor later on Monday.

Names being touted include Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, the son of a Pakistani bus driver whose father came to the UK in the 1960s and who says his family could easily have been affected by the recent crisis.

Others potentially in the frame include former Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire, an ally of Mrs May’s who left the cabinet in January for an operation but has since returned to front-line politics.

Could one of the cabinet’s other heavy-hitters get a promotion? Environment Secretary Michael Gove and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt have been mentioned.

There could also be a swift promotion for Karen Bradley, four months after succeeding Mr Brokenshire as Northern Ireland Secretary.

What’s the job for whoever takes over?

Image copyright
PA

Analysis by BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw

With responsibility for immigration, counter-terrorism and policing, the job of home secretary is one of the toughest in government. During one period under Labour, there were six home secretaries in eight years.

But Amber Rudd’s job was made doubly difficult because she was following Theresa May, who’d survived in the post for more than six years and had set in train a series of plans and objectives that Ms Rudd was expected to stick to, even if she disagreed with them.

The former energy secretary was unable to put her stamp on any significant policy during her 21 months at the Home Office; much of her time was spent fire-fighting – dealing with the implications of Brexit, the rise in violent crime and last year’s terror attacks.

Presentationally, Amber Rudd was impressive. But she lacked a command of the detail, which her predecessor had mastered, and it proved to be her undoing.

They planned to apply for asylum at the American border, but knew there was a good chance that they would be split up during the process — possibly for months.

“But I’m going with the feeling that it’s going to be worth the effort,” said Mr. Quintanillo. He said his family were fleeing a gang that had attacked him and killed a close relative. “In the name of God, everything is possible,” he said.

Overlaying the personal struggles was a dense tangle of politics and policy — the ill will between Mr. Trump and Mexico that began the day he announced his candidacy; the acrimony between Mr. Trump and Gov. Jerry Brown of California over immigration; the politics of sanctuary cities; and the political logjam in Congress over funding Mr. Trump’s proposed border wall.

Photo

It all plays out in the context of Mr. Trump’s goal of making immigration a galvanizing issue in the midterm elections with Republicans worried about losing control of the House and perhaps the Senate.

Heather Cronk, co-director of Showing Up for Racial Justice, one of several American advocacy groups that have been helping the caravan and its participants, traveled to Tijuana to support the migrants in the final stretch.

“For us, this is all about who we are as a country,” she said. She added: “This is an existential moment. This is a spiritual moment. I want it to be true that when we say, ‘Liberty and justice for all,’ we mean it.”

It is a debate Mr. Trump apparently relishes.

With the migrants on the doorstep of the United States, Mr. Trump, in a tweet last week, ratcheted up his rhetoric, vowing “not to let these large Caravans of people into our Country.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Trump repeatedly came back to immigration issues at a rally in Michigan on Saturday night, saying at one point: “If we don’t get border security, we’ll close down the country,” apparently referring to a government shutdown when a funding deadline is reached in September.

Other administration officials have also been vocal.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the caravan “a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.”

Joined by supporters and dozens of members of the news media, the migrants gathered in a park on the Pacific Ocean about 10 a.m. local time and then later on a pedestrian plaza in front of a community center in downtown Tijuana. Scores of supporters, some of whom had walked from as far as Los Angeles, rallied Sunday morning just north of the fence separating the United States from Mexico on the American side of the oceanfront park.

What was supposed to be the final act of the caravan began about 3:30 p.m., when more than 150 of the participants, accompanied by relatives, supporters and the press, marched several blocks to a border crossing in Tijuana called El Chaparral. As they walked, they chanted and waved Honduran flags.

Photo

To qualify for asylum, applicants must prove they have been persecuted or fear persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs or membership in a particular group.

People who request protection at a United States entry point must be referred to an asylum officer for a screening, known as a credible-fear interview. If the officer finds that an applicant has a chance of proving fear of persecution, the person must then present his or her case before a judge. More than three quarters of applicants pass that initial review.

“We’re only sending people who we think will pass the credible-fear interview,” said Nicole Ramos, a volunteer immigration lawyer helping the caravan.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Thank you for subscribing.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

View all New York Times newsletters.

• See Sample
• Manage Email Preferences
• Not you?
• Privacy Policy
• Opt out or contact us anytime

But Customs and Border Protection, whose officers are stationed at ports of entry, announced late Sunday that it had exhausted its capacity to handle people traveling without documents.

Still, caravan organizers escorted some 50 participants along the long, elevated pedestrian walkway at El Chaparral that leads from Tijuana to the entrance to the United States in San Diego. At the gate leading into the American immigration checkpoint, American border authorities reaffirmed that they would not be able to process any more asylum-seekers on Sunday.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Alex Mensing, project coordinator for Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a transnational group that organized the caravan, told reporters gathered at El Chaparral that the migrants would remain at the gate, overnight if necessary, until border officials once again had the capacity to process them.

“We wish that the United States government were capable of accepting more than a few hundred asylum seekers at any given time, since we can certainly pick up more than a 1,000 people in an ICE raid on any given day,” he said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an arm of the Homeland Security Department.

Meanwhile, the rest of the asylum seekers, their relatives and supporters laid out blankets on a plaza outside the entrance to El Chaparral and prepared for a long, chilly night.

Photo

When they get a chance to make their case, migrant families that request asylum at the port of entry are likely to be placed on buses to Texas, where they will remain in detention centers for mothers and children. Adult men are likely to be detained in any number of facilities across the country that hold undocumented immigrants.

It is in these facilities that the migrants would be screened by United States immigration officials over the next several days. If they pass the credible-fear interview, the migrants will be allowed to make their case for asylum before an immigration judge, a process that unfolds over several months or longer.

Migrants, typically fitted with ankle monitors, often are allowed to travel to the interior of the country, where they stay with relatives or friends while their cases run their course.

Mr. Trump, however, has denounced that practice because some migrants have skipped their court hearings; he dismissed it as “catch and release.” In recent months, migrant advocates say, the Trump administration has kept many migrants seeking asylum in detention.

For all the high political stakes, the human stakes for the individual migrants planning to seek asylum Sunday were at least as high.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Byron Claros, a Salvadoran immigrant, joined the caravan with his 18-year-old brother, Luis Alexander Rodriguez, and their stepfather, Andres Rodríguez.

Mr. Claros and Mr. Rodriguez planned to petition for asylum Sunday afternoon; their stepfather, after consultation with volunteer lawyers in Tijuana, decided that his case for sanctuary was not strong enough and that he would remain behind in Mexico.

“The hour I’ve waited for my entire life has finally arrived,” Mr. Claros said early Sunday afternoon as he, hundreds of migrants, scores of their supporters, reporters and cameramen gathered in and in front of a community center and cafe in the downtown district of Tijuana, blocks from the border crossing.

Mr. Rodriguez said he was nervous, “because the United States can support our rights but can also deny us our rights.”

Still, he said, there was only one way to push: north.

“We’ve fought too much to get here,” he said. “And we’re here.”

Continue reading the main story

T-Mobile US Inc. struck a $26 billion deal to buy Sprint Corp. in a combination that, if allowed by antitrust enforcers, would leave the U.S. wireless market dominated by three national players.

It is the third time in the last four years the two rivals have attempted the combination.

The leaders of both companies are determined to close…

President Trump greets supporters during a campaign rally Saturday in Washington Township, Mich.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Scott Olson/Getty Images

President Trump greets supporters during a campaign rally Saturday in Washington Township, Mich.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

While the White House press corps was gathered in Washington, D.C., Saturday night for an annual gala, President Trump was in another Washington with a different crowd that he much preferred.

For the second year in a row, the president opted not to attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and instead hold a campaign rally of his own. And this year, he held it in Washington Township, Mich. — which is located in Macomb County, Mich., the home of the so-called Reagan Democrats, but which is now part of what’s known as “Trump Country.”

“Hello, Michigan. Hello, Michigan.” Trump said as the large crowd inside an arena chanted “USA! USA! USA!”

“You may have heard I was invited to another event tonight,” the president said, adding “but I’d much rather be in Washington, Michigan, than in Washington, D.C., right now. That I can tell you.”

Despite the night being framed by his absence from the nation’s capital and from an event hosted by D.C. journalists celebrating the First Amendment which his predecessors have dutifully attended, Trump’s remarks focused less on his familiar lines of attack against the media and more on his trademark policy initiatives, his accomplishments during his first 16 months in office and November’s midterm elections.

“We need to elect more Republicans so we can protect our cities, defend our borders, grow our economy and continue to make America great again,” Trump said early in his 80 minutes of remarks delivered in his often improvisational, stream-of-consciousness style to enthusiastic supporters.

“You see what’s happening with regulations, with massive tax cuts, with judges,” Trump also told the crowd that was cheering, holding signs and wearing red “Make America Great Again” hats.

“We’re appointing judges like, I guess — never before has anything happened like what we’re doing on great, conservative, Republican judges,” he said. The president also gave a specific shout-out to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch who, Trump said, “has been fantastic.”

Trump’s nearly hour-and-a-half-long stump speech touched on many of his recognizable talking points, including: having respect for the American flag and standing for the national anthem; having a strong military and increasing military spending; the strength of the economy and the stock market; the need for more job training for the skilled trades and more vocational schools; and his persistent claims of bias and corruption in the FBI as it has investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Just days after a meeting between the leaders of North Korea and South Korea and ahead of his planned meeting with the North’s Kim Jong Un next month, the president trumpeted his efforts to pressure the North to end its nuclear weapons program.

While he conceded he didn’t “really know” how his diplomatic efforts would turn out, he assured the crowd with, “I’ll tell you one thing: We’re not playing games.”

And answering criticism that he was engaging in nuclear brinksmanship with a volatile regime, Trump said, “No, strength is going to keep us out of nuclear war. It’s not going to get us in.”

Regarding trade and his desire to end some multilateral trade deals and negotiate new bilateral deals instead, the president explained, “I can’t let other countries take advantage of us. I can’t.”

And echoing one of his talking points on trade, Trump said he doesn’t fault other countries and world leaders for what he sees as unfair or imbalanced trade and deficits. Instead, “I blame past presidents and past leaders of our country,” he told the crowd who erupted in cheers.

The president renewed his praise of Dr. Ronny Jackson, who withdrew his nomination to be the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and his attacks on Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who had led the effort to surface allegations against Jackson that doomed the nomination. Tester is up for re-election in November in a state that Trump carried in 2016.

Jackson is “a truly high-quality human being,” Trump said.

“Well, I know things about Tester that I could say, too,” the president added, “and if I said them, he’d never be elected again.”

“What Jon Tester did to this man is a disgrace,” Trump told the crowd. Jackson has denied the allegations against him that recently made headlines. And late Friday, the White House said it had conducted its own investigation of the most serious allegations against Jackson. That investigation yielded no documents supporting the allegations and found some evidence refuting two major allegations against Jackson, the White House said.

On border security, the president seemed to suggest in an offhand way that he was willing to see the federal government shut down in order to get the level of security on the U.S.-Mexico border that he desires.

“We have to have borders and we have to have them fast. And we need security. We need the wall,” the president said. Trump explained that his administration had already obtained $1.6 billion in funding from Congress for improvements along the southern border. “We come up again on September 28th and if we don’t get border security, we’ll have no choice. We’ll close down the country.”

The president also gave a nod to rapper Kanye West who has stirred controversy by espousing his support for Trump on Twitter, a move that has made the artist a symbol of free speech and free thought in recent days on Trump-friendly Fox News.

“Kanye West gets it,” the president says after touting milestones in black and Hispanic unemployment that have been achieved during his tenure in office.

As for November and what many political observers see as a tough midterms season for the GOP, Trump juxtaposed national Democrats against many of his initiatives and policy positions.

“The Democrats don’t care about our military, they don’t care about our borders and I don’t think they care much about crime,” the president said.

“Nancy Pelosi and her gang, they’ve got to be voted out of office,” Trump added.

“A vote for a Democrat in November is a vote for open borders and crime. It’s very simple,” Trump also told the crowd later in his remarks after referencing Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who is up for re-election this year. “It’s also a vote for much higher taxes. It’s also a vote for — be careful of your Second Amendment. OK, be careful. Be careful of your Second Amendment if they get in.”

President Trump speaks to supporters during a campaign rally Saturday in in Washington Township, Mich.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Scott Olson/Getty Images

President Trump speaks to supporters during a campaign rally Saturday in in Washington Township, Mich.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The president’s rally was a hit with two supporters from Livonia, Mich., who spoke with NPR.

Bill King, a retiree, said he’s “loving” Trump so far and that he believes the president is good for the economy. King also agreed with Trump’s central message Saturday night.

“Republican voters are going to have to show up,” King told NPR, “The left wing is jazzed up for this; they’re motivated. We have to get Republicans motivated in order to keep good things happening.” King said he still wants to see Trump’s border wall built, to have the nation’s immigration laws changed as Trump and some conservative Republicans in Congress are proposing and for Congress to pass a second round of tax cuts.

King’s wife, Gina, said she approved of Trump. “To me, he’s really proven that somebody who isn’t part of the swamp can get things done — even though he has a lot of resistance.”

Both Kings said they are frustrated with members of Congress in both parties, saying Capitol Hill is obstructing Trump and not getting enough done.

And the media?

The press was the target of the president’s ire Saturday night far less than it was last year — when he skipped the same Washington, D.C., event and held a campaign rally in Harrisburg, Pa.

“These are very dishonest people, many of them. They are very, very dishonest people. Fake news, very dishonest,” Trump told the Michigan crowd after criticizing the use of anonymous sources in press reports.

The president also called out “fake CNN” near the end of his remarks.

“By the way, is this better than that phony, Washington White House Correspondents’ Dinner? Is this more fun?” the president asked just before he wrapped up his speech.

The question was clearly rhetorical and the answer was obvious both to Trump and the arena full of supporters.

But if there was any doubt, the president put it to rest.

He told the crowd had he been at the dinner in the other Washington, he would’ve been forced to smile through attacks on him or face negative stories afterward about not being a good sport while being roasted at the annual gathering of D.C. journalists.

“You know, there’s no winning,” he said over cheers.