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.

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

There were no sitcom actors. No Olympians or supermodels or Real Housewives, either. Even some of the usual high-profile media names were missing, too. And for the second consecutive year, so was the president.

The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday attracted about 3,000 journalists, random plus-ones and curious hangers on, but the usual buzz around the event was reduced to something more like a snore.

The annual social rite of spring in Washington was less ­the ­government-meets-Hollywood-meets-the-press glitzfest of yore and more like a dressed-up ­Kiwanis Club dinner, albeit one televised live by CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN.

This may have been President Trump’s intent when he turned down an invitation to the dinner, making him 0 for 2 since his inauguration last year. Trump — who distilled his signature hostility toward the news media by branding them “the enemy of the people” — arranged to be out of town while the journalists and their guests partied.

As he did last year, Trump staged a campaign-style rally, this year in Michigan, timing it to begin just as the salad was being served in the Washington Hilton ballroom. Many of the people at the Hilton read that as more than a coincidence. At one point in the speech, Trump eviscerated the media for being “very, very dishonest people.”

Fifteen presidents have attended the correspondents’ dinner since it began in 1921, which has made the event a hot ticket long before the likes of Bradley Cooper and Scarlett Johansson began showing up. The presidents-in-the-house streak ran to 36 consecutive years until Trump pooped out on the party last year. The last time Trump attended, in 2011, he sat stoically as the evening’s entertainer, Seth Meyers, dropped comic bombs on him. The prospect of it happening again seems to have deterred him from returning.

Trump did make one gesture toward press-administration glasnost, encouraging current and former members of his administration to attend (the White House announced last year that no staff employees would attend in “solidarity” with the president’s snub). And so Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus showed up. Omarosa Manigault-Newman came, too (accompanied by a fellow who tended to the train of her gown). Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders occupied a seat at the head table at the invitation of the White House Correspondents’ Association.

[The 2018 White House correspondents’ dinner: Our live coverage]

The celebrity cadre was small and not quite A-list: comic and Trump controversialist Kathy Griffin, Comedy Central host Jordan Klepper, Baltimore Orioles legend Brooks Robinson, Stormy Daniels attorney and ubiquitous TV presence Michael Avenatti.

The political contingent was modest as well. Among the pols in attendance were former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe (D), former New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.).

Tech luminaries? Titans of business? TV network chiefs? Not so many.

It was possible, one guest quipped, that Trump had done something he doesn’t usually do: He made an event more normal.

The sedate and earnest nature of the event was disrupted by comedian Michelle Wolf, the evening’s entertainer, who predictably went after Trump in a routine that swerved from raunchy to downright nasty. She began by saying, “Like a porn star says when she’s about to have sex with a Trump, let’s get this over with.”

Wolf vowed to get under Trump’s skin by questioning his wealth, issuing a call and response with the audience (“How broke is he?”). Her punchline included such quips as, “He’s so broke . . . he has to fly failed business class” and “he looked for foreign oil in Don Jr.’s hair.”

She was particularly harsh on the women associated with Trump. At one point, she compared Ivanka Trump to a diaper pail, and said Kellyanne Conway has “the perfect last name” because “all she does is lie.” Several cracks about Sarah Huckabee Sanders landed poorly, such as her alleged confusion over how to refer to Sanders’s full name: “Is it Sarah Sanders? Is it Sarah Huckabee Sanders? . . . What’s ‘Uncle Tom’ but for white women who disappoint other white women? Oh, I know: ‘Aunt Coulter.’ ”

Groans and cold silence followed.

[The harshest jokes from Michelle Wolf’s correspondents’ dinner speech]

In place of celebrity glitz, the correspondents’ group has tried to rebrand its party as a celebration of the First Amendment, a fundraiser for journalism scholarships and an awards ceremony. Winners of White House reporting awards this year included: the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, whom Trump disparaged in a tweet last week; a CNN team consisting of Jake Tapper, Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto and Carl Bernstein; Washington Post reporter Josh Dawsey, recognized for his work at Politico; and a team from Reuters.

And maybe that’s how it should be, Tapper indicated during a pre-dinner cocktail party.

“This might be a precedent that the president is setting that is good,” he said. “We in the media have constantly for years been accused of being too cozy with power — during the Bush years, during the Obama years. Maybe no U.S. president should ever feel comfortable in a room full of White House reporters. I know that’s not why he’s taking a stand, but maybe it’s a good thing.”

The WHCA’s current president, Bloomberg News’ White House reporter Margaret Talev, called the president’s absence “unfortunate.”

But she added, “Our tradition of inviting U.S. presidents, vice presidents and their staffs exists not because of the individual president but because of the office. Those who accept the invitation are signaling that they support the constitutional principles at stake and the role of the press and free speech in our republic.”

News organizations seemed to get that, quickly snapping up all of the available tables within the first week they were on sale.

That meant that more than the usual number of actual journalists got to attend, lending the affair a kind of industry reunion vibe.

“Maybe ultimately this should be more about the First Amendment, and about recognizing good journalism and about recognizing student journalists,” Tapper said. “Maybe this is not as glamorous and fun, but ultimately maybe this is what this event should be more like.”

But the dismissal appears to be an unforced error in a political year when Republicans cannot afford mistakes. The controversy exposed long-simmering tensions between Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians over who should be lawmakers’ religious counselor. And a public clash between Southern evangelical Republicans and Northern Catholics could play to the advantage of Democrats, who are pressing hard to bring working-class Catholic regions in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin back into the Democratic fold.

The controversy was heightened when Representative Mark Walker, Republican of North Carolina and a Baptist minister, said Thursday in an interview with The Hill newspaper that he hoped the next chaplain of the House might come from a nondenominational church tradition who could relate to members with wives and children.

Catholic Democrats quickly called his remarks anti-Catholic, as Catholic priests are celibate, and Mr. Walker’s spokesman later said Mr. Walker was not excluding a particular faith group. One Republican, Representative Peter T. King of New York, took issue with the comments.

“To be excluding one religion up front, that has all sorts of connotations coming from the evangelical community,” Mr. King said in an interview. He said he had received several inquiries from priests about Mr. Ryan’s decision, and he told the speaker, “This issue is not going to go away that quickly.”

A House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said Mr. Ryan gave the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, an additional reason for Father Conroy’s ouster: Mr. Ryan said he was upset that the chaplain had granted an interview to The National Journal.

In the interview, Father Conroy expounded on matters like sexual harassment and a possible spiritual crisis in Congress. He said he was asked during his job interview whether he had ever molested a child. And while he said he had never been asked to counsel a victim of sexual harassment or assault, he had handled cases of workplace abuse during his tenure in the House.

“Think about it: Who are the people that run for office?” he was quoted as saying. “Are they all highly skilled in every endeavor? No! They’re not. Many of them, I can tell you, don’t know how to say hello in the hallway, let alone work with office people that maybe they don’t think they have to listen to.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Ms. Pelosi issued a statement arguing that Mr. Ryan did not have the authority to dismiss the chaplain. “I have expressed my forceful disagreement with this decision to the speaker,” she said. “It is truly sad that he made this decision, and it is especially bewildering that he did so only a matter of months before the end of his term.”

The outrage broke down largely along party lines. Of 148 members of Congress who signed a letter to Mr. Ryan demanding answers on why he ousted Father Conroy, just one, Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, was a Republican.

“This will have ramifications,” Mr. Jones said Friday afternoon. “This is bigger than Father Conroy and the House of Representatives. This is about religion in America.”

The controversy was multifaceted, pitting evangelicals against Catholics but also resurfacing lingering anger over this Congress’s singular accomplishment, the 10-year, $1.5 trillion overhaul of the tax code.

To supporters of that legislation, especially to one of its chief architects, Mr. Ryan, the prayer issued by Father Conroy would have stung: “May all members be mindful that the institutions and structures of our great nation guarantee the opportunities that have allowed some to achieve great success, while others continue to struggle,” the priest said in the midst of the debate. “May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

Father Conroy, who was named to the post in 2011 by another Catholic Republican speaker, John A. Boehner, said that he did not regard his November prayer as political in nature.

“If you are a hospital chaplain, you are going to pray about health,” he said. “If you are a chaplain of Congress, you are going to pray about what Congress is doing.”

He said Mr. Ryan’s remarks to him afterward marked the only time anyone from the speaker’s office had chastised him for veering into the political realm.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“I’ve never been talked to about being political in seven years,” he said.

In an election that ultimately will revolve around President Trump, the controversy may well prove ephemeral.

“Whatever Democrats try to do, if they try to politicize this or capitalize on this, I just think it is way too obscure,” said Douglas Heye, a longtime Republican political strategist and a Catholic. “If you are having a larger conversation about ‘Catholic issues,’ Trump is going to dominate that.”

Ten years ago on Capitol Hill, the number of Catholic Democrats in the House was more than double the number of Catholic Republicans. Now it is nearly even.

Some on the left see an emerging issue for Mr. Ryan and his supporters. “Partisans will likely frame this as a Catholic versus evangelical contest,” said Christopher J. Hale, a strategist who did Catholic outreach for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. “They made a political football out of a good Catholic priest.”

The spat is particularly pointed because religious power in Washington has shifted drastically under Mr. Trump to white evangelical leaders. Unlike Mr. Obama, who relied regularly on a religiously diverse group of interfaith advisers, including prominent Catholics, Mr. Trump has elevated a select group of conservative evangelicals who routinely defend his political agenda, and it is rare to see a Catholic bishop in the White House.

Mr. Trump himself famously feuded with Pope Francis during his 2016 presidential campaign over Mr. Trump’s push to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico, which Francis called “not Christian.” Last year, some of Mr. Trump’s evangelical advisers sought to quiet Vatican criticism of the rightward direction of American Catholicism.

Before Francis became pope, the Vatican seemed to favor Republican mainstay issues, such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Francis’ rise helped reset the role of Catholicism in American public life, and prioritized political and economic messages on immigration and climate change.

The pope, like Father Conroy, is a Jesuit, an order of priests viewed by some as more liberal. Father Conroy’s resignation is all the more contentious in Catholic circles because Mr. Ryan is a Catholic conservative.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“We are a long way from Pope Francis at the White House and in the Capitol,” said John Carr, the director of the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University. “The divisions are greater, they are more stark and they are more angry.”

On Friday, the Catholic Association, a more conservative group, came to Mr. Ryan’s defense. Maureen Ferguson, a senior policy adviser with the organization, called criticism surrounding his decision to ask Father Conroy to step down “downright absurd.”

“Anyone who knows Speaker Ryan knows he is a devoted Catholic,” she said. “Much ado is being made about nothing.”

For others, it far more serious. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and an editor at large of America magazine, said he has heard from Catholics who are “dismayed” that a chaplain would be fired for apparently defending the poor, and he worries about the anti-Catholic dog-whistling.

“The implication that, as one legislator said, a ‘family man’ would be more suitable smacks of anti-Catholicism,” Father Martin said. “By that yardstick, Jesus wouldn’t qualify either.”

Continue reading the main story

GEDmatch said in a statement that law enforcement never approached it about the case in California.

“It has always been GEDmatch’s policy to inform users that the database could be used for other uses, as set forth in the site policy,” the website said, adding that participants’ information could help in the “identification of relatives that have committed crimes or were victims of crimes.”

Related

Paul Holes, a recently retired cold-case detective with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, described the process of narrowing down suspects using DNA.

“When you find somebody that has DNA that they might share with our offender … then you find somebody else. And if you see that they share a little more DNA, you’ve stepped a bit closer to who the offender is,” Holes told NBC News. “And so you end up marching down that path until, ultimately, you get within a reasonably small suspect pool.”

The pool in this case included DeAngelo, who was the right age and lived in the area where many of the crimes took place, officials said. Investigators kept tabs on him for six days, collecting actual DNA on items he had thrown out, before arresting him Tuesday night at his home.

And DNA potentially may have played an earlier role in the case: by stopping the crime spree. Genetic testing was just coming into use as a criminal investigative tool in 1986 when the Golden State Killer apparently ended his decadelong wave of attacks.

DeAngelo, who was a police officer for two departments in the 1970s, most likely would have known about the new method, experts said.

After Sacramento County prosecutors confirmed Thursday that they found DeAngelo through genealogical websites, Ancestry.com and 23andMe issued statements denying that they had played any role.

Still, privacy laws aren’t strong enough to stop other police departments from prying, said Steve Mercer, the chief attorney for the forensic division of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender.

“People who submit DNA for ancestors’ testing are unwittingly becoming genetic informants on their innocent family,” said Mercer, adding that they “have fewer privacy protections than convicted offenders whose DNA is contained in regulated data banks.”

Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University professor who studies ethics in science and medicine, said almost half of the firms that provide ancestry information will sell customers’ genetic information to some other company. Those might include pharmaceutical or drug developers that want it for research.

Earlier this year, Krimsky said in an interview with Tufts Now, a news site affiliated with Tufts University, that only 10 percent of the ancestry companies will destroy a person’s original sample.

“The vast majority hold onto your sample or sell it. So it’s not just the data, but your actual saliva, that’s being shopped around,” he added.

Friday’s summit between the leaders of North and South Korea was a “historic meeting” paving the way for the start of a new era, North Korea’s media say.

The North’s Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in of South Korea agreed to work to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons.

The official KCNA news agency hailed this as a “new milestone” in the path to joint prosperity. It also carried the full text of the declaration.

China and the United States both welcomed the news.

However, US President Donald Trump said he would continue to exert maximum pressure on North Korea, as he prepares to meet Mr Kim in the coming weeks.

“We’re not going to be played, OK?” he said.

“We’re going to hopefully make a deal.”

After the talks at the border, Mr Kim and Mr Moon also agreed to push towards turning the armistice, which ended the Korean War in 1953, into a peace treaty this year.

The summit came just months after warlike rhetoric from North Korea.

• Historic summit as it happened
• Five key moments from the meeting
• Read the Korean declaration in full

What is in the agreement?

Details of how denuclearisation would be achieved were not made clear, and many analysts remain sceptical about the North’s apparent enthusiasm for engagement.

An issue for the North is the security guarantee extended by the US, a nuclear power, to South Korea and Japan and its military presence in both countries.

• Will historic Koreas summit lead to peace?

Previous inter-Korean agreements have included similar pledges but were later abandoned after the North resorted to nuclear and missile tests and the South elected more conservative presidents.

Mr Kim said the two leaders had agreed to work to prevent a repeat of the region’s “unfortunate history” in which progress had “fizzled out”.

“There may be backlash, hardship and frustration,” he said, adding: “A victory cannot be achieved without pain.”

Other points the leaders agreed on in a joint statement were:

• An end to “hostile activities” between the two nations
• Changing the demilitarised zone (DMZ) that divides the country into a “peace zone” by ceasing propaganda broadcasts
• An arms reduction in the region pending the easing of military tension
• To push for four-way talks involving the US and China
• Organising a reunion of families left divided by the war
• Connecting and modernising railways and roads across the border
• Further joint participation in sporting events, including this year’s Asian Games

The commitment to denuclearisation does not explicitly refer to North Korea halting its nuclear activities but rather to the aim of “a nuclear-free Korean peninsula”.

• Why has Kim halted nuclear tests now?
• Profile: Kim Jong-un
• North Korea crisis in 300 words

What did China and the US say?

China later praised the political determination and courage of both leaders and said it hoped the momentum could be maintained.

President Trump also welcomed the news, tweeting that “good things are happening”.

Speaking in Washington, Mr Trump said his expected meeting with Mr Kim would take place in one of two countries under consideration and vowed he would not be “played” by the North Korean leader.

“We will come up with a solution and if we don’t we’ll leave the room,” he said.

How did Friday’s summit unfold?

The leaders were met by an honour guard in traditional costume on the South Korean side. The pair walked to the Peace House in Panmunjom, a military compound in the DMZ.

Mr Kim then invited the South Korean president to step briefly across the demarcation line into North Korea, before the pair stepped back into South Korea – all the while holding hands.

It was an apparently unscripted moment during a highly choreographed sequence of events.

Image copyright
EPA

The two leaders spoke together during a session broadcast live on South Korean TV.

Mr Kim jokingly apologised to Mr Moon for repeatedly forcing him to get up early because of the North’s missile and nuclear tests.

“I heard you [President Moon] had your early morning sleep disturbed many times to attend National Security Council meetings,” he said. “I will make sure that your morning sleep won’t be disturbed.”

“Now I can sleep in peace,” Mr Moon replied.

Mr Kim also acknowledged that the North’s infrastructure lagged behind that of the South.

“I’m worried that our transport situation is bad so it may discomfort you, it may be embarrassing [for me] if you visit North Korea after living in the South’s environment,” he said.

• Korea summit sparks cold noodle craze
• Diplomacy on the menu: How food can shape politics

After separating for lunch, the two leaders took part in a tree-planting ceremony using soil and water from both countries.

Image copyright
Getty Images

They later attended a banquet.

Mr Kim was accompanied for the symbolic discussions by nine officials, including his powerful sister, Kim Yo-jong.

• Kim’s sister and North Korea’s secret weapon

How did we get here?

Few had predicted a development like this, as North Korea continued its nuclear and missile tests and stepped up its rhetoric through 2016 and 2017.

Image copyright
Reuters

The rapprochement began in January when Mr Kim suggested he was “open to dialogue” with South Korea.

• Did the Winter Olympics repair relations?
• North and South set up hotline ahead of summit

The following month the two countries marched under one flag at the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, held in the South.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Mr Kim announced last week that he was suspending nuclear tests.

Chinese researchers have indicated that North Korea’s nuclear test site may be unusable after a rock collapse.

As President Trump threatens to reshape the Justice Department’s leadership and demolish its tradition of independence from politics, department alums are fighting back with increasing vigor — signing petitions, holding public events and taking direct aim at a man they fear will do lasting damage.

On Thursday, Trump suggested in a television interview he might increase his involvement with the Justice Department, which is exploring the conduct of his personal lawyer and overseeing the special counsel investigation into whether his election campaign coordinated with Russia.

[Trump says he might get more involved in managing the Justice Department]

Justice Department alums and legal observers already had been critical of the president for allegedly trying to exert influence over the agency in inappropriate ways, including by asking the FBI to let go of an investigation into his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. The president, though, has ignored their pleas to back off, asserting repeatedly that federal law enforcement leaders are out to get him.

“You look at the corruption at the top of the FBI; it’s a disgrace, and our Justice Department — which I try to stay away from, but at some point, I won’t — our Justice Department should be looking at that kind of stuff, not the nonsense of collusion with Russia,” Trump told Fox Friends.

Justice Department alums fear the president is laying groundwork to fire the attorney general, deputy attorney general or special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in an effort to end investigations that might affect him personally. Trump says he’s the subject of a “witch hunt.”

But his attacks also might have significant consequences, undermining public faith in the Justice Department, the FBI and the force of the law, said John Bellinger, a former Justice Department official who more recently worked as a legal adviser to the State Department and National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration.

“My real concern is that this will do long-term damage to the perception of independence of the Department of Justice and of the FBI, with at least some group of people, and that that might not ever be retained,” Bellinger said.

Trump’s latest complaints were familiar and wide ranging. In the Fox Friends interview, he raged about the number of Democrats on Mueller’s team, and the political donations a Hillary Clinton-ally made to the wife of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. He accused former FBI director James B. Comey of lying and leaking classified information in memos he provided to his lawyers detailing interactions with Trump.

Comey, who as FBI director had the authority to classify information, has said none of the memos were classified when he created them, though the FBI later deemed some of the information was.

Trump’s raging has generated little public pushback from those leading the Justice Department now. On Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a congressional hearing that he shared some of the president’s frustrations, and noted that FBI leadership has changed since Trump took office.

[‘This thing needs to conclude’: Sessions says he understands frustrations with Mueller]

Pressed on why he had so far refused to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a host of GOP concerns, many of them having to do with Hillary Clinton, Sessions responded, “I do not think we need to willy nilly appoint special counsels, and as we can see, it can really take on a life of its own” — taking what seemed to be a swipe at Mueller.

Sessions said he sympathized with Trump’s frustration about matters that have distracted from his agenda and suggested Mueller’s probe “needs to conclude.”

“Look, I think the American people are concerned, and the president is concerned,” Sessions said. “He’s dealing with France and North Korea and Syria and taxes and regulations and border and crime, every day, and I wish — this thing needs to conclude.”

It was unclear from the exchange what “thing” he was referring to, though a Justice Department spokeswoman said later, “I’d imagine he was saying that it’s in the public interest to have the special counsel’s investigation concluded as soon as possible.”

Outside the Justice Department, the concern has been more palpable. At Georgetown Law School on Thursday, a group of former Justice officials from both political parties held an event called “Democracy in the Balance,” where they warned of how Trump is violating long-held norms.

Former deputy attorney general Sally Yates, who emceed the event, said it was a way of “planting a flag and making it clear that these institutions are important and that what’s happening now is not normal.” Trump famously fired Yates, an Obama appointee, as acting attorney general after she refused to defend the first version of his travel ban.

“That’s one of the risks, I think, that we face in all of this, is that with a daily onslaught, after a while people stop feeling outraged by it, and it starts becoming more and more normal,” Yates said in an interview.

As of Thursday, more than 900 former Justice employees had signed an open letter calling on Congress to “swiftly and forcefully respond to protect the founding principles of our Republic and the rule of law” if Trump were to move on Mueller or other Justice Department officials. Trump has long raged about Sessions recusing himself from the investigation that Mueller now leads. Those inside the Justice Department have been on edge since the FBI earlier this month raided the home, office and hotel room of Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

[Senate Judiciary Committee backs bill to protect special counsel Robert S. Mueller III from being fired by President Trump]

Former Justice officials often speak out about issues important to them, but the volume and forcefulness with which many are criticizing Trump is notable.

Comey, who is in the midst of a media tour to promote a new book, has repeatedly compared Trump to a crime boss and his presidency to a forest fire. Yates said in an interview this week that the president’s attacks on the Justice Department are “beyond unprecedented,” and that voters should take them into account in deciding whether he should be reelected in 2020.

The Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and it is not inappropriate for the president to work with his attorney general on promoting broad policy goals. Jack Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration, said at the Georgetown event that Trump has “extraordinary theoretical powers to control prosecutions,” though since Watergate, presidents have by tradition steered clear of putting their thumb on the scale in such matters.

Trump, Goldsmith said, seemed to be “indifferent to those norms” — though his efforts so far had been largely ineffective.

Of particular concern to some is that Trump has suggested his foes, such as Comey and top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, should not just be investigated, but jailed.

“That is not okay,” Comey said on CNN Wednesday. “This is the United States of America.”

[Trump grants pardon to former Bush official; some say he is using the law as a political tool]

Former Justice Department officials critical of Trump have stopped short of calling for the president to be removed from office by impeachment. So far, their pleas have mostly been that voters and legislators take notice. Bellinger said he hoped that more Republicans who held senior Justice Department positions, in particular, would join the chorus of voices defending the agency.

Trump campaigned on a promise of shaking up Washington, and he reiterated that on Thursday.

“I’m fighting a battle against a horrible group of deep-seated people — drain the swamp — that are coming up with all sorts of phony charges against me, and they’re not bringing up real charges against the other side,” he said.

Yates said that while voters might have rightly expected Trump to bring significant policy changes, “I think what you don’t expect and what’s a lot more dangerous to us as a country is this all-out assault on institutions and norms that are really essential to our democracy.”