The Wall Street Journal - 07.03.2020 - 08.03.2020

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. **** Saturday/Sunday, March 7 - 8, 2020 |A

U.S. NEWS

President Trump on Friday
said that he is replacing Mick
Mulvaney, his acting chief of
staff of 14 months, with Rep.
Mark Meadows, a longtime
ally and frequent defender of
his on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Meadows will be Mr.
Trump’s fourth chief of staff.
“I have long known and
worked with Mark, and the re-
lationship is a very good one,”
Mr. Trump tweeted from his
Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago. He
thanked Mr. Mulvaney “for
having served the administra-
tion so well,” and said Mr. Mul-
vaney would become U.S. spe-
cial envoy for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Meadows (R., N.C.), a
confidant of the president’s
going back to the 2016 cam-
paign, has long been expected
to join the White House in
some capacity.
Mr. Mulvaney didn’t imme-
diately respond to a request
for comment. In a statement,
Mr. Meadows said, “It’s an
honor to be selected by Presi-
dent Trump to serve alongside
him and his team.”
After serving in the House
since 2013, Mr. Meadows said
in December that he wouldn’t
seek re-election. Around the
same time, he discussed with
the president a role that
would bring him inside the
White House, people familiar
with the talks said. At the
time, the discussions focused
on a senior adviser-type role
in which Mr. Meadows would
consult on a range of issues.
Mr. Trump had spoken with
Mr. Mulvaney for the past sev-
eral days about leaving the ad-
ministration, one senior official
said. The president discussed
the change at a private fund-
raiser Friday night, speaking
positively about both men and
setting high expectations for
Mr. Meadows, according to a
person who attended the event.
Several White House aides
described the move as part of
Mr. Trump’s campaign prepa-
ration. Mr. Meadows gives the

president a confidant at his
side heading into re-election.
One Republican close to the
White House said Mr. Mead-
ows had a deal in place for
weeks to become staff chief,
but was waiting for the presi-
dent to announce it.
Mr. Meadows, a onetime
real-estate developer and sand-
wich-shop owner, was one of
the founders of the House Free-
dom Caucus, which rose to
prominence as a rebellious band
of about three dozen Republi-
can lawmakers willing to buck
their party establishment.
Mr. Meadows was a thorn
in the president’s side when
he opposed the president’s ef-
fort to repeal the Affordable
Care Act in 2017. In subse-
quent White House meetings,
he forged a bond with Mr.
Trump and revived the effort
to repeal the health-care law
in the House. It later failed in
the Senate.
In recent months, Mr.
Meadows became part of Mr.
Trump’s de facto defense team
during the impeachment in-
vestigation on Capitol Hill and
the trial, working in the Sen-
ate side of the Capitol and ap-
pearing on media to fero-
ciously defend the president.
Mr. Mulvaney, who served
as the White House budget di-
rector, was appointed acting
chief of staff in December

2018. He kept the “acting” ti-
      tle—which Mr. Meadows won’t
      have—throughout his tenure.
      Unlike his predecessor, John
      Kelly, who as chief of staff
      strove to tighten access to the
      president and bring order to
      the White House, Mr. Mulvaney
      was content to “let Trump be
      Trump.” But he clashed with
      the White House Counsel’s Of-
      fice during the impeachment
      process, aides said, and often
      appeared not to be involved in
      some major decisions.
      By the end of his tenure, his
      relationship with Mr. Trump
      appeared to be nonexistent.

BYREBECCABALLHAUS
ANDMICHAELC.BENDER

Meadows

Named

New Chief

Of Staff

Mick Mulvaney,
whose relations
with Trump
soured, will be
replaced by
Rep. Mark
Meadows.

amount to an impossibly cum-

bersome task.

Officials with the Justice

Department and the Depart-

ment of Homeland Security

told reporters on Thursday

that the expansion brings the

government in better compli-

ance with that 2005 law. The

Justice Department also has

argued the administration

feels compelled to move ahead

with the plan because it could

help the government better

identify immigrants who might

commit crimes in the future.

The move is part of the

Trump administration’s

broader shift to consider most

immigrants entering the coun-

try—even those who come to

als each year would constitute

a large and unjustifiable step

toward full population surveil-

lance,” the American Civil Lib-

erties Union wrote in a Novem-

ber public comment opposing

the proposed rule. The Justice

Department didn’t alter its rule

before finalizing it on Friday.

The Supreme Court has rec-

ognized a robust right to pri-

vacy in the U.S., even extending

it to those living in the country

unlawfully, though privacy

laws have been relaxed within

a hundred-mile radius of the

border, where federal agents

are permitted to perform war-

rantless searches and some un-

authorized immigrants can be

deported without a hearing.

Crossing the border for the

first time is considered a mis-

demeanor under federal law

and remaining in the country

is a civil, rather than criminal,

infraction.

The government’s plan,

which it made known in a pro-

posed rule in October, alarmed

immigrant- and civil-rights ad-

vocates, who said collecting

DNA samples from people who

haven’t committed crimes

would amount to significant

violations of privacy. Many im-

migrants enter the country at

legal ports of entry to ask for

asylum, for example.

“The forcible collection and

retention of DNA from hun-

dreds of thousands of individu-

legal ports of entry—as crimi-

nals. It has made all unauthor-

ized immigrants targets for de-

portation, a departure from the

Obama administration’s policy.

It also follows a recent es-

calation in its long-running

battle against “sanctuary” cit-

ies and states that adopt poli-

cies blocking cooperation with

federal immigration authori-

ties. The government recently

has sued several states over

their sanctuary policies, and

Immigration and Customs En-

forcement has launched a mul-

ticity arrest operation target-

ing cities including New York,

Los Angeles and Chicago that

refuse to help identify unau-

thorized immigrants.

WASHINGTON—The Trump

administration plans to begin

taking DNA samples from mi-

grants crossing the border or

held in detention for use in a

federal criminal database, a

significant expansion of immi-

gration laws that is certain to

raise privacy concerns.

The new rule, posted by the

Justice Department on Friday

and set to take effect in April,

will require immigration offi-

cers to collect cheek swabs

from what could amount to

hundreds of thousands of unau-

thorized immigrants taken into

federal custody each year, in-

cluding migrants at the border

and people asking for asylum.

The move, which is sure to

face court challenges, injects a

new civil-rights issue into the

debate about immigration pol-

icy. It will amount to a signifi-

cant expansion of the govern-

ment’s DNA database, operated

by the Federal Bureau of Inves-

tigation, that primarily contains

samples from people accused of

committing serious crimes.

Collecting DNA samples

from immigrants has long

been one method floated to

better track criminals who had

once been in federal immigra-

tion custody but might not

otherwise be known to law-en-

forcement officials.

In 2005, Congress passed a

sweeping new law giving the

government more authority to

DNA-test and fingerprint crim-

inals, an expansion of govern-

ment power after the Sept. 11,

2001, terrorist attacks. The

law granted the Department of

Homeland Security an excep-

tion so they didn’t have to

take these measures with im-

migrants in its custody. The

Obama administration exer-

cised that exemption, arguing

such a collection effort would

BYMICHELLEHACKMAN

Immigrants’ DNA Will Be Collected

The Trump administration plans to begin taking DNA samples from migrants crossing the border or held in detention.

JOHN MOORE/GETTY IMAGES

ginia Citizens Defense League,

a gun-rights group. “Virtually

all of them started out much

worse than they are,” he said.

Mr. Van Cleave said he

thought lawmakers took into

account a mass demonstration

against gun-control measures

that drew an estimated 22,

protesters outside the state

Capitol in January. Many Vir-

ginia communities declared

themselves Second Amendment

sanctuaries, meaning they

wouldn’t follow new gun re-

strictions they say violate the

state or federal constitutions.

A February poll released by

Christopher Newport Univer-

sity found broad support

among Virginians for some

gun-control bills, with 86% in

favor of universal background

checks and 73% backing a red-

flag law. The survey found

54% of voters favored banning

assault-style weapons.

political comeback. A year ago

he faced widespread calls from

fellow Democrats to resign af-

ter a racist picture from his

medical-school yearbook sur-

faced. He initially apologized

but has since denied being in

the photo, which shows one

person in blackface and an-

otherinKuKluxKlangarb.

“Across the country, people

expect results and we’re deliv-

ering in Virginia. What you’re

seeing is the will of the people

at work,” Mr. Northam said in

a statement.

Gun control was the mar-

quee issue of the session, as it

was in last year’s election cam-

paign. The issue gained urgency

this past May after a mass

shooting in Virginia Beach.

Several gun-related bills

were weakened, as they worked

their way through the legisla-

tive process, said Philip Van

Cleave, president of the Vir-

population growth in suburban

areas like Northern Virginia.

Not every item on the pro-

gressive wish list made it.

Moderate Democrats in the

Senate joined with Republi-

cans to block a ban on the sale

of assault-style weapons, the

most contentious gun-related

bill. A proposal to repeal the

state’s right-to-work law,

which protects workers from

having to join a union or pay

dues, went nowhere.

For Mr. Northam, the ses-

sion is the latest chapter of his

Democrats captured both

the House and Senate in No-

vember’s elections, giving the

party across-the-board legisla-

tive control for the first time

since the early 1990s. Mr.

Northam laid out a broad

range of priorities at the start

of the session in January and

is expected to sign the gun

limits into law.

In addition to gun mea-

sures, the legislature passed

bills banning employment and

housing discrimination based

on sexual orientation and gen-

der identity; easing abortion

restrictions; and allowing no-

excuse absentee voting.

“Overall, the agenda that

was passed is unprecedented

in a Southern state,” said Bob

Roberts, a political-science

professor at James Madison

University. He said the session

shows how much the elector-

ate has changed, fueled by

Virginia Democrats used

their newfound control of the

state legislature to pass sev-

eral progressive bills, includ-

ing new gun restrictions, dur-

ing the annual session that

ends Saturday.

Among the bills headed to

Democratic Gov. Ralph

Northam’s desk is a red-flag

measure that would allow

guns to be taken away from

people deemed dangerous.

Other gun bills would expand

background checks and rein-

state a limit of one handgun

purchase a month; authorize

local governments to ban guns

from municipal buildings and

public parks; require gun own-

ers to report lost or stolen

firearms within 48 hours; and

impose penalties for recklessly

allowing a child under age 14

access to a loaded gun.

BYSCOTTCALVERT

Newly Empowered Virginia Democrats Pass Agenda

on CNN.com. The complaint fo-

cuses on a passage stating that

the Trump campaign had “as-

sessed the potential risks and

benefits of again seeking Rus-

sia’s help in 2020 and has de-

cided to leave that option on

the table.” The lawsuit called

the passage “blatantly false.” A

representative for the network

declined to comment Friday.

The lawsuits demand mil-

lions of dollars in damages.

President Trump is entitled

to the protections of libel law,

but his campaign organization

could have disadvantages as a

plaintiff, legal scholars say.

When it comes to defama-

tion litigation, public figures

such as Mr. Trump must es-

tablish that not only was a

statement false and defama-

tory, but that it was published

with “actual malice.” That

means showing evidence that

the people who wrote and ed-

ited the statement knew it was

false—or likely false but they

didn’t care to print the truth.

Each of the lawsuits empha-

size that special counsel Rob-

ert Mueller’s report on allega-

tions of Russian interference

in the 2016 election found in-

sufficient evidence that Mr.

Trump and his campaign crim-

inally conspired or coordinated

with Russia. Suggestions to

the contrary are damaging to

the campaign’s reputation and

require expenditures to clear

the record, the suits state.

Legal scholars said there is

a crucial distinction between

statements asserting facts and

ones expressing opinions.

Opinions are usually treated as

protected speech, while an in-

correct, defamatory fact isn’t.

The Trump campaign de-

clined to comment. Fred Ryan,

publisher and chief executive

of the Post, said the suits are

an affront to the principles of

press freedom. A spokeswoman

for the Times said the Trump

campaign is using litigation to

“try to punish an opinion

writer for having an opinion

they find unacceptable.”

A series of libel lawsuits

filed by the Trump campaign

against large media organiza-

tions are likely to run up

against tough obstacles and

depending on how far they

progress, could subject the

president to depositions, ac-

cording to legal experts.

The Trump campaign’s defa-

mation claims against the New

York Times on Feb. 26, the

Washington Post on Monday

and CNN on Friday appear to be

unprecedented, legal scholars

said. Courts have heard defama-

tion lawsuits from governors,

an ex-president and a presiden-

tial candidate, but legal schol-

ars said they couldn’t recall the

last time a sitting U.S. president

or his campaign elevated griev-

ances against the news media

into civil legal action.

The Trump campaign’s ini-

tial lawsuits concerned two

Post opinion pieces published

in June 2019 and one in the

New York Times in March

2019. Each contain passages
      implying Donald Trump sought
      or welcomed Russia’s interven-
      tion in the 2016 presidential
      election or the 2020 race.
      The Trump team’s libel
      complaints continued Friday
      with a new lawsuit against
      CNN, alleging the campaign
      was defamed by a lengthy
      opinion article posted in June

BYJACOBGERSHMAN

Trump Campaign’s Media

Libel Lawsuits Are Long Shots

Trump camp is seeking millions

of dollars in damages.

STEFANI REYNOLDS/BLOOMBERG NEWS

Democrats captured

both the House and

Senate in the state’s

November elections.

Visit our first of many flagship showroom opening soon.

8626 Melrose Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90069

bensoleimani.com

888.216.

Iconic Design | Bespoke Quality