Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Immigration arrests climbed yet again in April as federal agents continued to track down both criminal and noncriminal aliens in far greater numbers over the first 100 days of the Trump administration than they did under former President Barack Obama a year ago.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations deportation officers administratively arrested 41,318 illegal immigrants on civil immigration charges between Jan. 22 and April 29, according to agency data released Wednesday. That was a 38 percent jump over the 30,028 arrests made in the same time period in 2016, the final year of the Obama administration.

ICE says it has averaged about 400 arrests per day since President Donald Trump signed executive orders in January authorizing stepped-up immigration enforcement.

“Agents and officers have been given clear direction to focus on threats to public safety and national security, which has resulted in a substantial increase in the arrest of convicted criminal aliens,” ICE acting Director Thomas Homan said in a statement. “However, when we encounter others who are in the country unlawfully, we will execute our sworn duty and enforce the law.”

The arrest data show a continuation of a trend that became apparent in the first two months of Trump’s presidency. ICE arrested 21,362 illegal immigrants from Inauguration Day through March 13, about 33 percent more than the number of immigration arrests made in same period in 2016. (Read more from “Immigration Arrests Jump Nearly 40% Under Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What a Middle Eastern NATO Could Accomplish for Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the Middle East experiencing renewed levels of tumult, it begs consideration: Does the region need its own version of NATO?

This idea appeared in The Washington Post just this week. Josh Rogin reported that during the president’s stop in Saudi Arabia, he might lay out a proposal for a regional security alliance of Arab states.

It is not surprising that two major ports of call in the region—Israel and Saudi Arabia—would be part of President Donald Trump’s travels. The administration has put peace and stability in the Middle East at the top of his foreign policy agenda.

In addition to these state visits, the president has already met in Washington with leaders from Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey.

More than glad-handing, all these meetings look substantive, part of the U.S. effort to knit together a regional effort to achieve two key strategic goals: countering the destabilizing influence of Iran, and defeating the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

Traditionally, the U.S. has managed its Middle East influence through bilateral alliances. But even during the presidential transition, there were proposals for establishing a more formal multi-national mutual security architecture along the lines of NATO.

That’s not an unprecedented idea. In the 1950s, the U.S. supported the Central Treaty Organization, organizing the “Northern-Tier” (including Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan) as part of a containment strategy against the Soviet Union.

The proposal floundered, argues Michael Doran in his excellent book, “Ike’s Gamble: America’s Rise to Dominance in the Middle East” (2016), because the U.S. failed to understand the internal dynamics of the region. Successful security alliances require a common threat, but that is not enough to build and keep a coalition together.

Alliances endure because of common interests.

>>> New Turmoil in Middle East Makes Sisi-Trump Ties Even More Important

Conflicting concerns have always stymied efforts to build coalitions in the Middle East. The Gulf Cooperation Council, for example, has flirted with military cooperation, but it has never amounted to anything serious.

The U.S. was successful in knitting together an Arab coalition force for the first Gulf War, but it was a temporary effort designed for a specific mission. It did not endure past the war.

“Frankly, there is too much distrust and suspicion between the regional countries for this to ever be effective,” argues Heritage Foundation scholar Luke Coffey. “The best way for the U.S. to enhance regional defense capabilities is through deepening bilateral relations with key countries.”

Yet, even if such an alliance never comes to fruition, there could be value in even suggesting the idea.

Uniformly, the Arab states and Israel are both anxious for the U.S. to r-engage in the region and help deal with the twin dangers of Iran and ISIS/al-Qaeda.

“Any further inter-Arab security and defense cooperation is very welcome as another way to put pressure on Iran,” argues Heritage Foundation regional security expert Jim Phillips, “but the White House needs to manage expectations with this.”

A formal alliance is unlikely to be quickly accomplished and could amount to little of practical value.

Moreover, even if such a treaty organization is even contemplated, it should not—and really cannot—be a substitute for the important bilateral relations that the U.S. currently enjoys with the countries in the greater Middle East.

A treaty organization might make sense as a mere suggestion to help shock the region into believing that the U.S. really is back as a balancing force to help quell the currently spiraling chaos in the region.

On the other hand, the U.S. should not over-invest in the effort at the expense of assembling the coalition it needs right now to undertake pressing and immediate tasks.

These urgent tasks include finishing the destruction of the ISIS caliphate, stabilizing the refugee populations, dealing with the counterterrorism threats from ISIS 2.0 that will likely persist in the region, preventing Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from becoming substantial bases of transnational terrorism, and diminishing Iran’s destructive influence in the region.

These tasks will require a comprehensive American-led effort of military, diplomatic, and assistance and engagement measures. They are tasks that cannot wait for a formal alliance structure to be established—if one ever actually does materialize. (For more from the author of “What a Middle Eastern NATO Could Accomplish for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump likely will propose a plan next week calling for a balanced budget in 10 years, fiscal experts predict. It also will address how to fund the border wall, higher defense spending, and other Trump initiatives over the next decade.

“Many Republicans have been calling for a 10-year balanced budget,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal. “One way they may show savings for that 10-year period is through management and downsizing reform efforts.”

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, took an initial step last month in rolling out government reforms that the administration intends to expand on later this year.

A budget proposal that allows a president to demonstrate how committed he is to campaign pledges and gives a glimpse of plans to make $54 billion in cuts to foreign aid and nondefense discretionary spending is a good sign, Edwards said.

“One role of a federal budget proposal is for the president to create a bully pulpit to argue for cuts,” Edwards said. “Even if Congress doesn’t go along with phasing out things such as NPR [National Public Radio] and PBS [Public Broadcasting Service] this year, proposing this creates a needed national discussion.”

A balanced budget plan would be a significant departure from the previous administration. A major Republican criticism of President Barack Obama was that he never proposed a single balanced budget plan during his eight years in office.

Still, without entitlement reforms and with projected increases for infrastructure spending, projecting a balanced budget in 10 years would be based on very optimistic economic assumptions, said Romina Boccia, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“If the OMB numbers are higher than what the [Congressional Budget Office] and nonpartisan assessments are reflecting, it might be questionable. Balancing in 10 years relies heavily on economic growth,” Boccia told The Daily Signal.

Trump and Mulvaney have said their goal is for the United States to surpass 3 percent annual growth again.

Mulvaney, who announced the budget would be released Tuesday, is set to address a hearing of the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. The Senate Budget Committee calendar doesn’t yet include Mulvaney.

An OMB spokesperson told The Daily Signal that the office is still working on the rollout and would have details later.

The White House released a budget blueprint in March that focused only on the fiscal year 2018 budget. But next week, the fiscal plan will project out for the next decade.

The fiscal 2018 plan addressed only discretionary spending. The proposal to be released Tuesday will look at the other two-thirds of the budget, which is mandatory spending and mostly goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Both Edwards and Boccia anticipate that the proposal will address fraud in the Medicaid and Social Security disability programs.

Among details the public will learn more about:

The 10-year budget will provide a better idea of how Trump plans to pay for the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. The fiscal 2018 blueprint calls for a down payment of $1.5 billion.

The fiscal 2018 proposal included a $54 billion increase in the military budget, to $603 billion, offset by cuts to foreign aid. Next week’s plan will show how much military spending would grow over 10 years.

The plan reportedly aims to invest in school choice programs and scale back funding for public schools.
The president’s budget proposal is largely a vision statement, Boccia said.

Lawmakers on the House and Senate budget committees likely will be eager to see how proposals for tax reform and reorganizing the government will affect future years, and how that in turn affects budget negotiations, she added. (For more from the author of “Trump Expected to Propose Plan to Balance Budget in 10 Years” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Americans today are facing an epidemic of chronic illness, including arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. In fact, chronic illness is now the biggest single driver of medical costs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that chronic diseases are the leading cause of death and disability in America. As of 2012, the last time the agency collected data, approximately 117 million U.S. adults had one or more chronic health conditions.

The challenge of effectively caring for the growing numbers of Americans suffering with these conditions, particularly as they age into retirement, is enormous.

That is why Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; and Mark Warner, D-Va., have come together to address the problem.

For two years, they have closely studied the impact of the chronic illness problem, particularly as it relates to Medicare, the health program for America’s senior and disabled citizens.

Medicare is facing significant challenges from cost increases related to chronic illnesses, at a time when the program already faces many other challenges.

While a large number of factors contribute to Medicare’s rising costs—including the rapid aging of the population, the expense of newer prescription therapies, as well as the unit costs of increasingly expensive medical treatments and procedures—one cannot overlook the fact that an estimated 68 percent of Medicare recipients suffer with multiple chronic conditions.

Medicare beneficiaries who suffer from chronic illnesses, of course, disproportionately contribute to costly hospital readmissions.

Under Hatch’s leadership, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday held a mark-up session on S. 870, the Creating High-Quality Results and Outcomes Necessary to Improve Chronic (CHRONIC) Care Act of 2017. The committee approved the bill by a vote of 26-0.

With 17 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill aims to amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to implement Medicare payment policies designed to improve management of chronic disease, streamline care coordination, and improve quality outcomes without adding to the deficit.

The Senate legislation would largely build upon the success of Medicare Advantage, the large and growing system of competing private health plans in the Medicare program.

Today, almost one-third of all enrollees in the Medicare program are enrolled in these private health plans, and that number is projected to grow significantly.

The bill would also extend new care delivery options for the so-called “accountable care organizations” (ACOs) that currently deliver medical care in the traditional Medicare program as well.

Thus far, the ACOs have had a mixed success in delivering cost-effective care in the Medicare program. This legislative effort, focused on chronic illness, may help to improve their performance.

Hatch and his colleagues build on the potential of Medicare Advantage plans to cope with the chronic illness problem because the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does not respond nearly as well to the growing challenge of chronic illness.

Traditional Medicare does not provide the case management and care coordination that is increasingly routine in competing private health plans in the Medicare Advantage program.

Key Objectives

The Senate legislation has several objectives.

First, it would enhance home-based and “team-based” care, particularly for senior and disabled enrollees in the Medicare Advantage “special needs plans.” These special Medicare Advantage plans are already focused on providing care for complex and difficult patient populations.

The bill also expands opportunities for telehealth.

Second, the bill would broaden opportunities for doctors and patients in Medicare Advantage to make use of advancing medical technology and the latest innovations in benefit designs and care delivery models.

For example, the bill would enable Medicare Advantage plans to offer new benefits to chronically ill patients, not as “supplemental” benefits, but as part of their regular benefit offerings.

In short, the bill would give Medicare Advantage plans more flexibility in their benefit design and reimburse them for it.

Third, the bill would amend the law governing ACOs by enabling ACO patients to see any physician of their choice, while allowing ACOs to offer incentives to patients who take advantage of preventative care services.

An Important Step

In the short term, the Senate bill would improve care delivery for the chronically ill.

The potential for improving patient care across the board would be even greater if seniors’ health plans and providers—including traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and ACOs—were able to compete on a level playing field where information on medical prices and outcomes was fully available, and where patients exercised direct control over Medicare dollars in a defined contribution (“premium support”) program.

This bill is an important step forward in a process of improving Medicare, especially for those beneficiaries that experience chronic illness. (For more from the author of “Chronic Illness Is an Epidemic in America. This Senate Bill Will Help Address It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Months before Donald Trump was even nominated for president at the Republican National Convention, the possibility of impeaching President Trump was already being floated in political circles.

“‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress,” read an April 2016 Politico piece, titled, “Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?”

“They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh predicted a month before the Politico piece. “You might finally get to see unified opposition to the guy.”

“The only way Obama has gotten away with all this authoritarian executive order stuff is the Republican Party hasn’t stopped him. You want to see an opposition party in action, take a look at Democrats down the road,” he added.

Rush reiterated that prediction less than a week before the election. “I think one of the plans the Never Trumpers have if he wins is to impeach him,” the radio host said.

A day before the election, researchers with the University of Utah made the legal case for impeaching Trump if he won the election. The researchers claimed Trump could be charged with fraud or racketeering, both of which are felonies. (Read more from “The Trump Impeachment Narrative Gets Changed Dramatically When You Consider This One Fact” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former FBI Director James Comey may have been building a legal case against President Donald Trump well before the president fired him on May 9, according to a former Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson.

Matthew Miller, who served as the DOJ’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs under former Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that Comey may have been building an obstruction of justice case against the president, in an interview with the Washington Post.

Miller’s suggestion carries weight not just because of his extensive background at DOJ and in government, but also because he predicted that Comey left a paper trail of his interactions with Trump. Miller sent the following tweet five days before the New York Times reported that Comey wrote a memo indicating the president had asked him to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While Miller said it is standard practice for an FBI director to record potentially inappropriate conversations and behavior, Comey could have taken a different approach when speaking with the president.

“I keep wondering, something in the back of my head keeps saying to me, maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here,” Miller told WaPo. (Read more from “Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying to Take Down Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sheriff David Clarke Says He’s Accepted DHS Job

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County, Wis., said Wednesday he has accepted a job in the Department of Homeland Security.

Clarke told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna during an interview on 1130 WISN that he will leave his post as sheriff to serve as a deputy secretary of Homeland Security.

“I’m both honored and humbled to be appointed to this position by Secretary Kelly, working for the Trump administration,” he said during the radio show.

Clarke said he will leave his position as sheriff in June to work in the Office of Partnership and Programs as a liaison with state, local and tribal law enforcement.

While the DHS did not confirm Clarke’s reported role, it did note the position in question does not require Senate confirmation. (Read more from “Sheriff David Clarke Says He’s Accepted DHS Job” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former FBI Director Mueller Named to Lead Trump-Russia Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Justice Department on Wednesday appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee a federal investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

The appointment gives Mueller, who led the FBI through the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and served under presidential administrations of both parties, sweeping powers to investigate whether Trump campaign associates colluded with the Kremlin to influence the outcome in his behalf, as well as the authority to prosecute any crimes uncovered during the probe. The broad mandate, beyond any specific Trump-Russia connection, also covers “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, facing scathing criticism for authoring a memo that preceded the firing last week of James Comey as FBI Director, said in a statement that Mueller’s appointment was “necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome.” (Read more from “Former FBI Director Mueller Named to Lead Trump-Russia Probe” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say

/0 Comments/in , /by

While Democrats cry for impeachment, legal experts are dubious that President Donald Trump’s reported conversation with FBI Director James Comey about his former national security adviser would be an easy case of obstruction of justice.

“I don’t personally think any prosecutor would bring that case,” Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director for the bureau’s Criminal Investigative Division, told The Daily Signal, referring to the report that Trump suggested Comey, whom he later ousted, back off investigating Michael Flynn.

“Any defense attorney could argue the president was wishing out loud,” Hosko said. “There was no killing a witness, no destruction of evidence.”

The New York Times first reported Tuesday on Comey’s purported memo of a February conversation in which Trump told him: “I hope you can let this go … [Flynn] is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Trump fired Flynn after six weeks on the job after concluding the national security adviser misled Vice President Mike Pence regarding the content of his contacts with Russian officials before the president’s Jan. 20 inauguration.

The “big however,” Hosko said, is whether Trump’s May 9 firing of Comey could be connected to an effort to stop an FBI investigation.

“The president can fire an FBI director for any reason or no reason,” said Hosko, now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “But, if evidence emerges that he fired Comey over the Flynn investigation or over the Russia investigation, now it becomes harder to defend.”

The Justice Department on Wednesday named another former FBI director, Robert Mueller, as a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the presidential election. The FBI also is investigating Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

Several House Democrats are using Comey’s purported memo on what Trump said to him to demand impeachment of the president—a highly unlikely scenario given Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, delivered a floor speech Wednesday about impeachment, though he didn’t sound convinced the president was guilty. Green noted that it is the Senate’s job to make that determination in a trial after the House adopts articles of impeachment against a president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

“Impeachment does not mean the president will be found guilty,” Green said. “It simply means the House of Representatives will bring charges against the president.”

Democratic leadership in the House and Senate has not taken up the cause of impeachment, although an increasing number of partisan pundits are using the word.

Even if there was a House majority to pass articles of impeachment against Trump, two-thirds of the Senate would have to agree on his removal from office after a trial.

This would be a politically steep hill to climb, one presidential historian notes. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been impeached by the House, and both survived a Senate trial to serve out their terms.

The cases were quite different, but offer context for any such effort against Trump, said Larry Schweikart, a retired history professor at the University of Dayton who is author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents” and co-author of “How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution.”

“Andrew Johnson, for example, was impeached because he was as unpopular in Washington, as Trump is—but Johnson deliberately and blatantly went out of his way to violate a law so as to provoke impeachment as a test case,” Schweikart told The Daily Signal in an email.

He stressed that Johnson had been Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, assuming office only upon Lincoln’s assassination, and “was a Democrat in a Republican administration that hated him.”

The economy shows signs of improving, Schweikart added, which means that even if Democrats gained a congressional majority, impeachment would be politically difficult.

“The GOP actually opposed Clinton, while his own party supported him rabidly. But a similarity with Trump [is] the economy was booming,” Schweikart said. “Trump’s economy isn’t quite there yet, but it’s very, very hard to even undertake impeachment against a president who has a booming economy. Watergate did not turn [public opinion] against Nixon until the economy turned sour. Had Nixon had Clinton’s economy, he likely would have survived.”

Schweikart said perhaps 20 House Republicans are “committed to the swamp” and might be inclined to join Democrats in impeaching Trump, but he doubts they would take the political risk.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in response to a question from a reporter, said that trying to stop an investigation would be an impeachable offense, The Hill reported. But, Amash said, “everybody gets a fair trial.”

The key charge against Johnson was for the controversial firing of War Secretary Edwin Stanton, at the time considered a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The statute, since invalidated by the Supreme Court, disallowed the firing of high-ranking government officials without Senate approval.

One of the two articles of impeachment against Clinton was obstruction of justice.

Matthew Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, has prosecuted obstruction of justice cases, generally in the context of a drug dealer trying to make a witness change his story. Obstruction has a specific definition in the U.S. Code, Whitaker said.

“Obstruction is a very technical crime with important elements to prove,” Whitaker, now executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, told The Daily Signal. “We don’t know enough, based on what we’ve seen of the memo.”

In remarks Wednesday to Coast Guard Academy graduates in New London, Connecticut, Trump didn’t directly talk about the obstruction allegation, but he took shots at his political opponents and the media.

“Look at the way I’ve been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly. You can’t let them get you down,” Trump said, getting applause. “You can’t let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams. … I guess that’s why we won.”

David McIntosh, a lawyer and former House member from Indiana, argued during remarks at a Federalist Society conference Wednesday that Trump had both the authority to talk to Comey about an ongoing investigation and to fire him. McIntosh said:

President Trump acted appropriately if he gave guidance to Director Comey on an investigation. It is important for us to step back and remember that, under the Constitution, the president has the authority and power to enforce the laws. There’s nothing in the Constitution about an FBI director.

The FBI director reports to the president, and it is the president’s decision to delegate authority on investigations. In delegating that authority, presidents have wisely chosen to insulate the FBI from political interference. But the president still has the power and authority to direct the FBI how to do their job.

Congress, in its critiques of the executive branch, should not overstep and try to direct or limit the president’s legitimate exercise of his Article 2 powers.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, requested that the FBI provide a physical copy of Comey’s memo to congressional investigators. Someone apparently read from the Comey memo to The New York Times reporter.

Democrats likely know this is not a viable obstruction case, said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Even if The Times story is entirely true, he said, “In the words of James Comey: No prosecutor would bring this case.”

Sekulow added:

“Obstruction of justice is a loaded term. It’s political to create an impeachment scenario. The bar is lower, but we have a Republican Congress. This is just political warfare. It was enough to get the Washington media talking about it. … During the Obama years, when people would talk about impeachment, we’d always discourage that talk as no way to get things done.

(For more from the author of “Trump Impeachment Proceedings Over Obstruction Charge Unlikely to Go Far, Analysts Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Expansion of Mexico City Policy Is a Major Victory in Protecting Life

/0 Comments/in , /by

Someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion—both here and overseas.

They will note that we prided ourselves on our commitment to human rights, while precluding virtually all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today—unborn children.

And they will demand to know why dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing an infant with powerful suction devices, or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals failed to elicit in so many so much as a scintilla of empathy, mercy, or compassion for the victims.

Abortion is violence against children, and hurts women.

This week, the Trump administration announced the implementation of the new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy—a significant reiteration and expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy.

Announced by Reagan at the United Nations Conference on Population Control in Mexico City in 1984—hence its name—the policy was and is designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is not funneled to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush embraced the policy, while Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama nullified it.

Thirty-two years ago—in July of 1985—I authored the first of several successful annual amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives to preserve the Mexico City policy.

Significantly, the old Mexico City policy only applied to family planning funds—over half a billion dollars.

The new policy establishes pro-child safeguards—benign, humane conditions—on about $8.8 billion in annual global health assistance funding appropriated to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of State and Defense.

This funding includes not only family planning, but other global health assistance such as maternal and child health, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.

Also of significance, the new pro-child, pro-woman safeguards do not reduce funding for global health assistance by so much as a dollar.

According to State Department guidance, the policy only applies to foreign NGOs as grantees or subgrantees. Other potential recipients of global health assistance grant money—including national and subnational governments—are exempt, as are refugee and migration assistance programs.

President Donald Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy includes three abortion exceptions—for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Nothing in the policy prevents foreign NGOs from treating injuries or illnesses that were caused by any abortion.

For years, pro-abortion organizations have used U.S. taxpayer funds to weaken, undermine, or reverse pro-life laws in other nations and systematically destroy the precious lives of unborn children.

Scores of countries throughout the world have been besieged by aggressive and well-funded campaigns to overturn their pro-life laws and policies.

The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy will significantly mitigate U.S. taxpayer complicity in global abortion.

U.S. foreign policy—and the foreign entities we fund with billions of dollars in grant money—should consistently affirm, care for, and tangibly assist women and children.

We must increase access to maternal and prenatal care, and ensure access to safe blood and better nutrition.

We must also expand essential obstetrical services, including skilled birth attendants, while improving transportation to emergency care facilities to significantly reduce maternal mortality and morbidity—including from obstetric fistula.

Prioritizing programs that ensure adequate nutrition and supplementation for moms and children during the all-important first 1,000 days of life—from conception to the second birthday—are among the most transformative, life-enhancing commitments that can be made.

Expanding these measures make women and children healthier, stronger, and more resilient to disease and disability while reducing death and injury.

No one is expendable or a throwaway. Every human life has infinite value. Birth is merely an event, not the beginning of the life of a child.

The new Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy is inclusive of all people, regardless of their age, race, sex, disability, or condition of dependency—especially the weakest and most vulnerable. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Expansion of Mexico City Policy Is a Major Victory in Protecting Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.