The $451 million reason this 20-year-old just retired

How do you tell your father that you’ve just won $451 million? For 20-year-old Shane Missler, it was over coffee the day after he hit the lottery jackpot.

Missler, from Port Richey, a suburb of Tampa, is the winner of the whopping $451 million Mega Millions prize, the Florida Lottery announced on Friday.

He has since retired from his job at a local background screening company, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

The winning numbers, drawn last Friday night, were 28, 30, 39, 59, 70 and 10. Missler bought the quick-pick ticket at a 7-Eleven in town last week; the retailer received a $100,000 bonus, the Lottery said.

But it was Missler who went home with the big haul, which was the fourth-biggest in the multistate lottery’s 15-year-old history. According to the Lottery, Missler elected to receive his payment as a one-time lump sum, which amounted to just over $280 million. That’s about the net worth of Taylor Swift, according to a Forbes article from 2017, but a touch under Judge Judy’s.

“If there is one thing I have learned thus far in my short time on this earth it is that those who maintain a positive mind-set and stay true to themselves get rewarded,” Missler said, in a statement quoted by the Times. “I look forward to the future.”

The newspaper reported Missler had turned his winning ticket in on Friday, “grinning widely.”

Missler had told the Lottery that he had “a feeling” that he might win. His brother was the first person he called after learning of the extraordinary news, before telling his father the next morning, the Lottery reported.

The money will be paid to a trust run by Missler, the Times said. Missler told the paper that he planned to help his family, have some fun along the way, and make sure his financial success extended far into the future.

“Although I’m young, I’ve had a crash course this week in financial management and I feel so fortunate to have this incredible wealth and team behind me,” Missler said in his statement to the Times.

Missler’s lawyer, Walt Blenner, could not be immediately reached for comment.

All lottery winnings are subject to a 25 percent federal tax withholding, The Washington Post’s Jonnelle Marte writes. Most states also charge taxes, but Florida does not.

This win comes just a few years after another Florida winner split a sizable haul with a winner from Maryland. Winners from the two states won the $414 million Mega Millions jackpot in 2014.

The odds of winning the jackpot are about one in 302 million.

Kristine Phillips contributed to this report.

Read more:

How Mega Millions changed the game so everyone gets rich — except you

A potty-mouthed history of presidential profanity — and one cursing white house parrot

Trump’s vulgarity: Overt racism or a president who says what many think?

One barnyard epithet and the leader of the free world was now definitively a racist or, alternatively, was back in the good graces of those who had worried he’d been wavering in his nationalism.

One ugly denunciation of the population of much of the planet, and President Trump had once again propelled himself to center stage — boxing out discussion of any number of world crises and, more immediately, freezing progress toward a bipartisan deal on immigration policy.

Trump’s slur Thursday against the “shithole countries” from which he’d rather the United States take fewer immigrants sparked a louder than usual tempest Friday, but the storm took a very familiar shape.

Each side reacted more or less according to script: ever-more frustrated expressions of outrage from those who believe the president has confirmed his racism, and ever-more fervent defense from those who supported Trump in the first place because, as many of them have argued for two years, he says what many Americans think.

“Well, being president, I think he should be more careful with what he says,” said Marjorie Caddick, 93, a longtime Republican who lives in Munster, Ind., and voted for Trump. “He’s laughable and he doesn’t get the respect that he should have because he says these things.” But Caddick said that even if Trump is “too loose with his tongue . . . he means well.”

President Trump speaks during a press conference with cabinet members and Republican leadership at Camp David on Jan. 6. (Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg)

She also agreed with Trump on the need to tighten up on immigration: “These are poor countries, and . . . we’ve given them so much money, and it doesn’t get better.”

The storm over Trump’s comments — in which he was bemoaning immigration from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries rather than from wealthier nations like Norway — has taken the year-old debate over Trump’s demolition of presidential tradition to new terrain. For the first time in diplomatic history, nations around the world inserted a gutter vulgarity into official statements. The U.N.’s High Commissioner on Human Rights, Rupert Colville, declared that “there is no other word one can use but ‘racist.’”

“With one word,” wrote the New Yorker’s Robin Wright, Trump “has demolished his ability to be taken seriously on the global stage.”

But did he, really? Is Trump’s latest comment a showstopper — or just another scene in a long-running production that wins audiences through pugnacious behavior, profane language and all manner of provocation?

“This is par for the course,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a supporter of the president who is writing a book about Trump’s America. “Trump relies on the fact that his opponents are so nihilistic and elitist that they’ll react hysterically to something like this. And his base isn’t remotely corroded by this. Almost anything he does that is outside the establishment resonates in the end with people who say well, at least he’s sticking it to the powerful.”

Gingrich said the normal concerns that presidents and other politicians have about their legacy and reputation don’t seem to apply to Trump, who has made smashing conventions the core of his brand for nearly half a century.

President Trump listens as Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson speaks during an event to honor Martin Luther King Jr., at the White House Friday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Critics of the president argued that the main issue is not Trump’s language or even what’s in his heart, but rather the policies he’s enacting and the midterm elections coming up this year.

“We’ve got to get beyond the antics and address the policy,” said Rev. William J. Barber II, a member of the NAACP’s national board who has been rallying progressives to “put checks and balances on Trump’s power by changing the makeup of the Congress.”

“It’s not just Trump,” Barber said. “Everyone in his administration . . . is participating in systemic racism . . . We turn our outrage into sustained organizing, protests, voter registration, and voter mobilization.”

Rev. Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist and TV talk host, said the fact that Trump’s slur came during a meeting about immigration policy put it in a different category from past controversial remarks. “Some of the stuff he said in the past was just as offensive and insulting,” he said, but this time, Trump was “framing 21st century Jim Crow immigration law.”

Sharpton plans to campaign for a congressional censure of the president. “The threat is not his rhetoric, it’s what he’s doing,” he said. “He’s making laws out of this . . . We have trade agreements with people in Africa. We work on security issues with African nations; that’s where ISIS is, that’s where al-Qaeda is. What do we get out of Norway? … If we insult everybody in Africa, how can we have intel on the ground for fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda?”

To Tiffany Mock, 50, a teacher and Trump supporter who lives in Cumberland, Md., Trump was simply noting that many more people from impoverished countries want to immigrate to the United States than from affluent nations like Norway.

“I don’t like the language or the comments that he made, but I do like that he’s putting America first,” she said, adding that she didn’t hear Trump favoring white immigrants over other races. “I didn’t take it as racist. He’s not a racist. I’m not a racist — although they say you’re a racist if you say that you’re not a racist.”

Right-wing extremists and white supremacists welcomed Trump’s comment. Former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana legislator David Duke said the president “restores a lot of love in us by saying blunt but truthful things that no other president in our lifetime would dare say!”

On cable TV and social media, the president’s language became fodder for round-the-clock hardening of long-standing views about Trump’s unsuitability to hold office, or, conversely, his heroic championing of ordinary Americans.

“The president of the United States is racist,” CNN anchor Don Lemon began on his broadcast Thursday night.

But over on Fox News Channel, Jesse Watters concluded that “This is how the forgotten men and women of America talk at the bar . . . Is it graceful? No . . . Is it a little offensive? Of course it is. But you know what? This doesn’t move the needle at all. This is who Trump is.”

For career politicians in his own party, confrontations with Trump’s vocabulary of insults and exaggerations make for repeated awkward moments. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) Friday called Trump’s choice of words “very unfortunate, unhelpful” and praised African immigrants in his hometown, but said nothing about racism.

Before Trump won, Ryan was more pointed in his criticism. During the 2016 campaign, the speaker called Trump’s attack on a federal judge because of his Mexican heritage the “textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Although this week’s example of Trump’s rhetoric was not intended for public consumption, it mirrored a number of incidents in which the president has attached stereotypes to people based on their background — his comments about Muslims; his description of blacks as living in war zones and having nothing to lose; his singling out of a lone black man at a rally as “my African American.”

Last March, at a meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Trump asked his guests if they knew Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, the only African American in his cabinet, NBC News reported Friday, citing sources who were in the room. The president was surprised when it turned out that none of the lawmakers knew Carson. The same report also said that Trump suggested during a briefing that a career intelligence analyst should be negotiating with North Korea because she was a “pretty Korean lady.”

In the tumult following the report of Trump’s immigration comment, which he seemed to deny in a tweet Friday morning, a few voices broke through party lines. Former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, asked if he thought Trump is racist, said in a TV interview, “Yeah, I do. At this point, the evidence is incontrovertible.”

In a separate interview with The Washington Post, Steele said the difference between Trump’s past slurs and this incident was the connection to national policy: When Trump launched his campaign in 2015 by stating that Mexican immigrants were “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists,” he was “speaking in broad brushes, reflecting his own internalized view of Mexicans,” Steele said. “This time around, it’s in the context of policy. This is about using the resources of the federal government to aid and assist people who are seeking a better life for themselves . . . and his view of this is ‘why should we help them, they’re from shithole countries.’”

Steele called it “disappointing as hell” that Republicans in Congress have not had “a more forceful rhetorical response to the president, particularly by the members who were in the room and heard it.” This fall, he said, voters will hold their representatives to account.

“This is no longer about what Donald Trump, what he said and did,” Steele said. “All presidents come to reflect America, our values, reflect who we are and the question we have to ask ourselves is, is this an accurate reflection of who we are?”

New tax guidelines rely on workers to double-check their paychecks

Millions of Americans will need to use a new Internal Revenue Service online calculator to ensure their new paychecks are accurate, Trump administration officials said Thursday as they issued guidelines for implementing the recently passed tax law.

The guidelines are necessary for businesses to calculate how much to withhold in taxes from employees’ paychecks beginning as soon as next month. The White House said Thursday that businesses should make these adjustments by Feb. 15, part of the administration’s push for millions of workers to see bigger paychecks as quickly as possible.

In rushing the process, the Treasury Department is asking companies to rely on outdated forms to help determine how much to withhold.

A senior IRS official said Thursday that Americans with simple tax situations are likely to get accurate paychecks next month. But many Americans, including those who tend to itemize their tax returns, will need to use the online tool to ensure they are not dramatically overpaying or underpaying their taxes. The online calculator will not be available until sometime next month.

If they find their paychecks are inaccurate, it will be incumbent on the employees to tell their employers to make corrections.

“This will provide [Americans] with certainty so they are neither over-withheld or under-withheld,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Thursday.

The new guidelines incorporate lower tax rates that were central to Congress’s December tax overhaul. Trump administration officials said that the guidelines should lead to bigger paychecks for 90 percent of all wage earners.

But these tax withholding decisions are based on tax forms Americans file with their employers, known as W-4s, that were written to apply to an outdated tax system. The Treasury Department and IRS are designing new W-4 forms that millions of Americans will probably be able to fill out later this year to make their tax withholdings more accurate in the future, but they will not be ready in time for the paycheck adjustments next month.

“We had an existing form,” Mnuchin said. “We had existing technology. We had to figure out how to fit this in this format.”

Senior Treasury Department officials said they expect employers to update their systems so that the new withholding tables go into effect by Feb. 15.

Americans typically have federal income taxes withheld from their paychecks, money that is aggregated over the course of the year to account for a person’s federal tax liability. When they file their tax returns, if their tax payments were too high or too low, they must account for the difference through a refund or payment. Currently, 76 percent of Americans who file their taxes receive a tax refund. A senior IRS official said he expected that level to fall just a bit next year to around 73 percent.

But Democrats have alleged the number could fall much more, accusing the White House of changing the tax tables in a way that will lead to Americans dramatically under-withholding their tax payments during the year, only to be hit with big tax bills next year. They have ordered a review by the Government Accountability Office to determine whether the new tax guidelines are accurate.

“Republicans are using brute force and speed to implement a law that will deliver a financial blow to hardworking Americans all across the country,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement. “I look forward to GAO’s independent review of these tables, which will expose whether the Trump administration is tampering with Americans’ paychecks, resulting in a whopping tax bill next year.”

Many Americans are likely to see changes and adjustments this year in their tax payments as the law goes into effect.

The law lowers tax rates, which is the primary reason Americans will see bigger paychecks next month, but it also limits or scales back tax deductions, changes that might not be realized until Americans file their tax returns.

For example, there is a new $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes a household can deduct from federal income. There are also new limits on the mortgage interest deduction, and the child tax credit was expanded.

Senior IRS and Treasury Department officials told reporters Thursday that they would be encouraging all Americans to proactively use a new IRS tax calculator in late February to help them determine whether their paychecks are accurate. If they determine they are paying too much or too little in taxes, based on the size of their family or other variables, they can direct their employer to make changes.

Americans will not be asked to input personal information such as names or Social Security Numbers into this online calculator, but they will need to input their income levels, family status and a number of other details.

The tax law is projected to add between $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years because of a fall in revenue, something Democrats have decried but Republicans have said will help spur economic growth.

Employers must now rush to incorporate the new tax withholding tables into their payroll systems, a process that is expected to take several weeks.

The lower rates, an expanded standard deduction, and a larger Child Tax Credit are projected to reduce taxes for American workers and business owners by $180 billion in 2018, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

But that will be partially offset by new curbs on numerous tax breaks, including the elimination of personal exemptions and the new cap on state and local taxes.

These tax changes are all scheduled to expire after 2025, though Republicans have said they want to make them permanent.

Trump: I ‘have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un’

President TrumpDonald John TrumpHouse Democrat slams Donald Trump Jr. for ‘serious case of amnesia’ after testimony Skier Lindsey Vonn: I don’t want to represent Trump at Olympics Poll: 4 in 10 Republicans think senior Trump advisers had improper dealings with Russia MORE said in a new interview Thursday that he “probably” has a “very good relationship” with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a day after expressing his willingness to enter talks with the country over its nuclear program.

“I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un,” Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I have relationships with people. I think you people are surprised.”

When Trump was asked if he has spoken with Kim, Trump said he didn’t want to comment.

“I’m not saying I have or haven’t,” Trump said. “I just don’t want to comment.”

Trump also told The Journal that his tweets on North Korea, in which he’s dubbed Kim as “Little Rocket Man” and labeled him a “maniac,” are part of a larger strategy.

“You’ll see that a lot with me,” Trump said about his fiery tweets. “And then all of the sudden somebody’s my best friend. I could give you 20 examples. You could give me 30. I’m a very flexible person.”

Trump’s remarks to the newspaper come one day after he told South Korea’s leader that he was open to direct talks with North Korea on its nuclear program.

On Saturday, Trump told reporters he would be open to speaking with Kim, but not without preconditions.

“Sure. I always believe in talking,” he told reporters at Camp David. “If something can happen and something can come out of those talks, that would be a great thing for all of humanity.” 

Trump has previously dismissed the idea of direct talks with North Korea, tweeting in October that negotiations with the country were a waste of time.

“I told Rex TillersonRex Wayne TillersonOvernight Defense: Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital | Mattis, Tillerson reportedly opposed move | Pentagon admits 2,000 US troops are in Syria | Trump calls on Saudis to ‘immediately’ lift Yemen blockade Trump has yet to name ambassadors to key nations in Mideast Mattis, Tillerson warned Trump of security concerns in Israel embassy move MORE, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” he said on Twitter. “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!”

Walmart boosts starting pay, closing dozens of Sam’s Clubs

Walmart confirmed Thursday that it is closing dozens of Sam’s Club warehouse stores — a move that a union-backed group estimated could cost thousands of jobs — on the same day the company announced that it was boosting its starting salary for U.S. workers and handing out bonuses.

The world’s largest private employer said it was closing 63 of its 660 Sam’s Clubs over the next weeks, with some shut already. Ten are being converted into e-commerce distribution centers, according to a company official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of the decision publicly.

He said it was too early to say how many people overall would lose their jobs since some will be placed at other Walmart locations or rehired at the e-commerce sites. Making Change at Walmart, a campaign backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, estimates that 150 to 160 people work at each Sam’s Club store, meaning the closures could affect about 10,000 people.

Lauren Fitz, 22, said she was at her other job as a church secretary when a colleague texted to say that the Sam’s Club where they both worked in Loveland, Ohio, had closed. Fitz had been pleased earlier to read the news that Walmart was boosting starting salaries and offering bonuses.

“I thought, ‘This is really cool.’ And then to find out that my store is closing,” said Fitz, who said she had worked as a sales associate in the jewelry department for two months. At home, she got a call from her manager and had a letter in the mail saying the store had closed and she could seek employment at another Sam’s Club or Walmart store.

“It was very sudden and very shocking,” Fitz said. “I don’t think our managers had any inkling yesterday. It was a normal shift.”

On Twitter, Sam’s Club responded to people’s queries by saying, “After a thorough review of our existing portfolio, we’ve decided to close a series of clubs and better align our locations with our strategy.”

Local news reports said Sam’s Clubs stores were closing in Texas, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana and Alaska, among other states.

Earlier in the day, Walmart had cited the sweeping Republican tax overhaul that will save it money in announcing the higher hourly wages, one-time bonuses and expanded parental benefits that will affect more than a million hourly workers in the U.S.

President Donald Trump cheered the announcement with a tweet, saying, “Great news, as a result of our TAX CUTS JOBS ACT!” White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders later said she would not comment on the Sam’s Club closings but that the wage increases were a sign that the tax measures “are having the impact that we had hoped.”

Walmart representatives did not respond to a question about the timing of the dual developments.

“This is nothing but another public relations stunt from Walmart to distract from the reality that they are laying off thousands of workers,” said Randy Parraz, a director of Making Change at Walmart.

Rising wages reflect a generally tight labor market. The conversion of stores to e-commerce sites also illustrates how companies are trying to leverage their store locations to better compete against Amazon as shopping moves online.

Walmart announced years ago that it would actively manage its store portfolio as it strives to put a dent in Amazon’s dominance online. With Thursday’s closing, that strategy is now extending to Sam’s Club.

Online retailers typically pay warehouse employees who pack and ship orders more than store jobs pay. Job postings at an Amazon warehouse in Ohio, for example, offer a starting pay of $14.50 an hour.

“This is about the evolution of retail,” said Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute. “The rise of e-commerce is leading to higher wages.”

Large employers also have been under pressure to boost benefits for workers because unemployment rates are at historic lows, allowing job seekers to be pickier.

But the low unemployment has meant that retailers have had trouble attracting and keeping talented workers, experts said. Walmart employees previously started at $9 an hour, with a rise to $10 after completing a training program. Target had raised its minimum hourly wage to $11 in October, and said it would raise wages to $15 by the end of 2020.

“They raised the minimum wage because they have to,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, said about Walmart. “The labor market is tight and getting tighter.”

While many department store chains such as Macy’s and Sears are struggling, retailers as a whole are still trying to hire. The retail industry is seeking to fill 711,000 open jobs, the highest on records dating back to 2001, according to government data. The longer those jobs go unfilled, the greater pressure on employers to offer higher wages.

Walmart, which reported annual revenue of nearly $486 billion in the most recent fiscal year, said the wage increases will cost it an additional $300 million in the next fiscal year. The bonuses will cost it about $400 million in this fiscal year, which ends on Jan. 31.

It joins dozens of companies including American Airlines and Bank of America that have announced worker bonuses following the passage of the Republican tax plan that slashed the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. “Tax reform gives us the opportunity to be more competitive globally and to accelerate plans for the U.S.,” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said Thursday.

The company said the wage increase benefits all hourly U.S. workers at its stores, including Sam’s Club, as well as hourly employees at its websites, distribution centers and its Bentonville, Arkansas, headquarters. The one-time bonus between $200 and $1,000 will be given to Walmart employees who won’t receive a pay raise.

In all, Walmart employs 2.3 million people around the world, 1.5 million of which are in the U.S.

Walmart also announced that full-time hourly U.S. employees can get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave and six weeks of paid parental leave. Before, full-time hourly workers received 50 percent of their pay for leave. Salaried employees, who already had 10 weeks paid maternity leave, will receive more paid parental leave.

For the first time, Walmart also promised to help with adoptions, offering full-time hourly and salaried workers $5,000 per child that can be used for expenses such as adoption agency fees, translation fees and legal or court costs.

———

AP Business writers Michelle Chapman in Newark, New Jersey; Chris Rugaber in Washington, D.C.; and Joyce M. Rosenberg in New York contributed to this report.

House Extends Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Safeguards

Effectively, the vote was almost certainly the end of a debate over 21st-century surveillance and privacy rights that broke out in 2013 after the leaks by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden.

The Senate began considering the newly approved House bill on Thursday afternoon; Senators Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, and Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, are expected to oppose the measure in the coming days. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, moved to essentially ensure that no amendments to the House legislation would be considered, and it appeared to be on a path to final approval when senators return to Washington next week.

Mr. Snowden’s disclosures in 2013 ushered in a period of intense interest in surveillance. Civil libertarians and conservative skeptics of government power worked together to push for new limits, while intelligence and law enforcement agencies and their backers in Congress from across party lines — and in both the Obama and Trump administrations — tried to hold the line.

The post-Snowden privacy movement secured its largest victory in 2015 when Congress voted to end and replace one of the programs that Mr. Snowden exposed, under which the N.S.A. had been secretly collecting logs of Americans’ domestic phone calls in bulk. But lawmakers who hoped to add significant privacy constraints to the warrantless surveillance program, too, fell short on Thursday.

Before voting to extend the law, known as Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the House rejected an amendment that would have imposed a series of new safeguards. That proposal included a requirement that officials obtain warrants in most cases before hunting for, and reading, emails and other messages of Americans that were swept up under the surveillance.

Supporters of those changes contended that the overhaul was needed to preserve Fourth Amendment privacy rights in the internet era. But intelligence and law enforcement officials argued that it was unnecessary, and dangerous, to limit security officials from being able to freely gain access to information the government already possessed.

Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican of California who leads the House Intelligence Committee, celebrated the outcome. “The House of Representatives has taken a big step to ensure the continuation of one of the intelligence community’s most vital tools for tracking foreign terrorists,” he said.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The program’s surveillance can be used for all foreign intelligence purposes. The sharpest points of the debate centered on when information about Americans that is gathered by the program can be used for criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism.

Photo

President Trump posted his tweet shortly after a Fox News legal analyst appealed directly to him during a Thursday morning segment about the upcoming House vote.

Credit
Tom Brenner/The New York Times

Representative Justin Amash, the Republican of Michigan who sponsored the privacy measures, expressed disappointment but vowed to keep fighting.

“We had a bipartisan coalition who worked very hard to protect people’s rights, and we will continue to fight and continue to educate our colleagues about it,” Mr. Amash said.

The House bill that was approved on Thursday does contain a gesture toward requiring officials to obtain a warrant to read Americans’ emails that are collected under the program. But it is written so narrowly that it will not protect the overwhelming majority of citizens’ information that is queried in the warrantless surveillance repository.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Specifically, a warrant would be required only if an F.B.I. agent wants to look at emails about a subject of an open criminal investigation for which there is no national security angle. It would not apply to security-related queries by any intelligence or law-enforcement agency, nor to requests from F.B.I. agents who are following up on criminal tips but have not yet opened formal investigations.

Matthew Olsen, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said that while he had concerns about how the F.B.I. would distinguish between criminal and national security cases, the overall thrust of the bill was a positive step.

“Congress has made clear that it is lawful to search using U.S. person identifiers for information that could help stop terror attacks and catch spies without a warrant,” he said. “That is the way the intelligence community has been operating under 702, and that is the way it will continue to operate if this bill becomes law.”

But Mr. Amash expressed hope that Mr. Trump might yet intervene to push for more changes to the legislation in the Senate.

Just before debate began on Thursday, the president posted a statement on Twitter that suggested skepticism about the surveillance bill.

Mr. Trump wrote the message shortly after a libertarian legal analyst on “Fox Friends,” Andrew Napolitano, appealed directly to him to go another route. Mr. Napolitano added that Mr. Trump’s “woes” began with surveillance.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The president’s tweet enraged Republican congressional leaders who have been trying to renew the 702 law more or less intact. Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Mr. Trump spoke by phone until he posted his next message, a senior Republican congressional aide said.

Fewer than two hours later, the president appeared to reverse himself on the issue in another statement on Twitter.

Despite the confusion, Republican leaders pushed forward, counting on moderate Democrats and Republicans to reject the proposed overhaul and pass the extension bill. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, lobbied members in a House cloakroom before the vote.

Some of the most conservative Republicans in the House joined with some of the most liberal Democrats in the failed bid for more privacy protections. Ultimately, 58 Republicans joined 125 Democrats in voting for the overhaul amendment, while 55 Democrats joined 178 Republicans in rejecting it. On Twitter, Mr. Snowden observed that it would have passed had fewer Democrats broken ranks.

But Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said afterward that by rejecting the overhaul amendment, the House had avoided imposing “a crippling requirement in national security and terrorism cases.”

“We were certainly thrown into plenty of turmoil with the president’s tweets this morning and that made everything look quite speculative,” Mr. Schiff said. “I do think the underlying bill makes a sensible compromise.”

Noah Weiland contributed reporting.


Continue reading the main story

Trump Renews Pledge to ‘Take a Strong Look’ at Libel Laws

“President Trump’s threat to revise our country’s libel laws is, frankly, not credible,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump’s remarks reflected a broader frustration in his inner circle over critical coverage in recent days that has cast him as an erratic and ill-prepared commander in chief.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, filed a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed News for publishing, last January, a salacious and mostly unsubstantiated intelligence dossier that purported to describe how Russia had aided the Trump campaign. The dossier characterized Mr. Cohen as a central figure in what it described as a globe-spanning conspiracy.

Mr. Cohen also filed a separate suit in federal court against Fusion GPS, the research firm that prepared the dossier. Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed both said they would aggressively defend themselves against the suits.

Last week, a lawyer working on Mr. Trump’s behalf, Charles J. Harder of Harder Mirell Abrams in Beverly Hills, Calif., sent an 11-page cease-and-desist letter to the publisher of Mr. Wolff’s book, “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”

Mr. Harder’s letter demanded that the publisher, Henry Holt and Company, withdraw the book from stores and apologize; the publisher responded by moving up the book’s release date and increasing its first print run to one million copies, from 150,000.

Mr. Trump’s remarks on Wednesday about libel law seemed, at times, to refer obliquely to the book, which debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times nonfiction best-seller list, and has provided fodder for dozens of news articles, opinion pieces and cable news segments.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

“We want fairness,” the president said. “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. We are going to take a very, very strong look at that, and I think what the American people want to see is fairness.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump made sport of the reporters who stood in fenced-off areas during his speeches, often whipping up the crowd against them.

He also said on the campaign trail that he would “open up” the country’s libel laws — although he later backed off that pledge in an interview with editors and writers at The Times, joking that he personally might be in trouble if the laws were loosened.

“Somebody said to me on that, they said, ‘You know, it’s a great idea softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more,’” Mr. Trump, who propagated false rumors that Barack Obama was born in Africa and that the father of Senator Ted Cruz had aided the assassination of John F. Kennedy, said at the time.

Mr. Trump is no stranger to defamation claims, having filed several of them himself, without success. In 2009, a New Jersey judge dismissed a $5 billion suit brought by Mr. Trump against a biographer, Timothy L. O’Brien; Mr. Trump had claimed that Mr. O’Brien understated his personal wealth.

The president’s comments about the news media on Wednesday also extended to one of his favorite punching bags: network news. He taunted the television reporters in the room, saying they were dependent on his activities for ratings.

“If Trump doesn’t win in three years, they’re all out of business,” the president said. “You’re all out of business.”

He also claimed that network anchors had sent him “letters of congratulations” on Tuesday about a cabinet meeting that was broadcast on television that day.

“A lot of those anchors sent us letters saying that was one of the greatest meetings they’ve ever witnessed,” Mr. Trump said, adding that he had received “about two hours” of positive coverage from news networks, “and then they went a little bit south on us.” (White House aides said later that the “letters” in question referred to complimentary tweets from journalists.)

“They probably wish they didn’t send us those letter of congratulations, but it was good,” Mr. Trump added. “I’m sure their ratings were fantastic.”

Continue reading the main story

Immigration Agents Target 7-Eleven Stores in Push to Punish Employers

In a statement, 7-Eleven Inc., which is based in Irving, Tex., distanced itself from its franchisees, saying they were independent business owners who “are solely responsible for their employees, including deciding who to hire and verifying their eligibility to work in the United States.”

“7-Eleven takes compliance with immigration laws seriously and has terminated the franchise agreements of franchisees convicted of violating these laws,” the company said.

If ICE hoped to make a bold statement, it could hardly pick a more iconic target than 7-Eleven, a chain known for its ubiquitous stores that are open all the time and sell the much-loved Slurpees and Big Gulps. Many a franchise has been a steppingstone for new, legal immigrants who want to own and run their own small businesses.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Not all franchisees have been scrupulous about whom they hire. ICE called its Wednesday sweep a “follow-up” of a 2013 investigation that resulted in the arrests of nine 7-Eleven franchise owners and managers on Long Island and in Virginia on charges of employing undocumented workers. Several have pleaded guilty and forfeited their franchises, and were ordered to pay millions in back wages owed to the workers.

“This definitely sends a message to employers,” said Ira Mehlman, the spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors more limits on immigration and stricter enforcement.

According to ICE, federal agents served inspection notices to 7-Eleven franchises in California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Washington, D.C.

Under President George W. Bush, ICE tended to make deportation arrests at worksites the government had reason to believe hired undocumented workers. The agency under President Barack Obama performed more inspections of the I-9 forms employers are required to fill out and keep to verify their workers’ eligibility.

One of the biggest workplace immigration raids, in July 2008, resulted in the detention of nearly 400 undocumented immigrants, including several children, at an Iowa meatpacking plant. Sholom Rubashkin, the chief executive of the Agriprocessors plant, then the largest kosher meatpacking operation in the country, was eventually convicted of bank fraud in federal court.

President Trump commuted Mr. Rubashkin’s 27-year prison sentence last month, after years of lobbying by a number of prominent lawyers and politicians who considered his term unduly harsh, and perhaps even anti-Semitic.

Follow Patricia Mazzei on Twitter: @PatriciaMazzei.


Continue reading the main story