Monday, February 11, 2019


Office of the Press Secretary


Via Telephone

2:24 P.M. EST

     MR. GIDLEY:  Appreciate everyone joining the call.  I do have an update for you as it relates to the attribution of this briefing call.  It has been changed from on-background to on-the-record.  I repeat: This call is now on the record.  The briefing will be conducted by Deputy Director of ICE, Matt Albence.  And he will address the dangerously catastrophic consequences of capping U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bed space.

     While the call has moved from on-background to now be on the record, the information on the call is still embargoed until the call's conclusion.

     With that, I'll turn the call over to Deputy Director Albence.

     DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  Thank you.  And thank you all for joining me today.  To the point -- and I'll get to it, and I'll open for Q&A fairly rapidly because I know that's probably more effective than me just droning on -- but what's important to stress is that, with this cap that Congress is attempting to impose through this current budget process, ICE is being asked to ignore the very laws that Congress has already passed.

     Of the individuals that we have in our custody, 72 percent of them are individuals who are subject to mandatory detention based on the Immigration and Nationality Act that Congress has already passed.  So, no other federal law enforcement agency is being asked to ignore the laws that Congress has already passed.

     With regard to putting a cap on ICE detention, this is a completely new provision that has never been in my 24-year career, and it will be extremely damaging to the public safety of this country.  And if we are forced to live within a cap based on interior arrests, we will immediately be forced to release criminal aliens that are currently sitting in our custody.  We'll be releasing gang members.  We'll be releasing individuals convicted of (inaudible) domestic violence and drug crimes.  And we will stop -- we will be limited in our ability to respond to state and local law enforcement agencies that are making arrests for these very crimes today, with these individuals sitting within their custody having been arrested for these criminal violations.

And they are asking us to come take these individuals out of their jails, out of their communities, and (inaudible) removal from the United States, remove them from the United States for the safety of their community and those that they serve.

     Unfortunately, we won't be able to -- we will not be able to respond to as many calls as we do today.  And, in fact, in many of these calls, we're going to tell them, "Just release them," because we have no choice.

     I can't understand how anyone, especially individuals, are sitting there saying that we need to be focusing our resources on criminals -- which we do.  If you look at our statistics, 9 out of every 10 people that we arrest come to ICE's attention via the criminal justice system.  That means they've been convicted of a crime or have been charged with a crime.  And if you add in those individuals who have been previously deported and enter the country illegally, or have been through court -- the immigration court process -- have received a file order of removal, and have absconded from that removal order, making them a fugitive, you are at 92 percent.

     So we prioritize our limited resources to the best of our ability.  But putting an artificial cap on our ability to detain individuals who pose a public safety threat is an (inaudible) public safety in this country, and it will lead to disastrous results.  We all know that many of these individuals are recidivist criminals.  For example, last year, we arrested 138,000 people in the interior of the United States that either had a conviction or a criminal charge pending upon -- at the time of their arrest.

     But those individuals, they count for over 540,000 criminal violations.  So while you'll hear somebody say that an individual was stopped for not having a driver's license or driving without insurance, and arrested for that crime, that may be the case.  But that individual may have a rap sheet a mile long, which hosts a list of violent crimes or immigration felonies that is why we are taking the enforcement action that individual in the first place.

     And on top of all of that, we have to remember that, absent the criminality, these individuals have broken the law by coming here illegally, or coming here legally and overstaying their visas.  So we cannot have a system whereby immigration enforcement is only effectuated against those individuals once they commit a subsequent crime to their initial immigration violation.

     You cannot have border security without a strong interior enforcement component because you'll continually have people to put the pressure upon that border.  Whether there's a wall there or not, they can come through a port of entry and make a fraudulent asylum claim, they can come on a legitimate visa and overstay that visa.  And if they know that there is no enforcement arm within the interior of the United States that's out there looking for them, you will continually have that pull factor and you will never secure the border.

     So I will leave it at that and be happy to answer any questions.

     Q    Hi, yes, thank you for doing the call and for taking questions.  I was just wondering -- I mean, considering a lot of the ICE data on your own website, and CBP data shows that the vast majority of those crimes are traffic offenses, immigration offenses -- according to CBP, it's 4 percent of those apprehended at the southern border and at ports of entry are violent criminals -- wouldn’t those funds be better used perhaps instead of using detention beds, but creating an E-verify system so, as you said, they know they can't overstay their visa, and using perhaps an ankle-monitoring system?

     DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  Okay.  Ankle monitors -- or, excuse me, E-verify is a complete, whole separate issue that probably is not the best topic for this thing, that we can get into another time.

     Ankle monitors, an alternative to detention, are woefully ineffective at effectuating removals of individuals from the United States.  The ATD budget has increased significantly over the past half-decade, and the number of individuals that we've been able to remove as a result of those budget increases is minimal.

     Last year, for a $183 million budget, we removed 2,470 individuals as a result of being on ATD.  Had that money been placed into detention beds, we would be able -- we would have been able to remove more than 10 times that number.  What we have seen is that the absconder rate on ATD, especially with regard to family units, is 1 in 3.

Further, what we have seen through a project that we're doing with the Executive Office of Immigration Review to have a dedicated docket to deal with these family units -- because of the crush at the border of these family units -- is, for about the past seven months, the immigration judges have issued 2,600 removal orders against family units.  Twenty-five hundred of those removal orders were issued in absentia, meaning that these individuals, they didn’t even show up to their first hearing in front of the immigration court.

     Overall, EOIR issued more than 45,000 in-absentia orders on individuals here in the country that did not show up for their hearings.  The number-one determinative factor of an individual being removed, once he receives that removal order, is that individual is sitting in a detention bed at that time that order is issued.  Detention is the only proven effective method to ensure that the individual order removed is actually removed.

     Q    Hi, thanks for doing this.  You mentioned at the beginning of the call that 72 percent of the detained population is subject to mandatory detention.  Can you break that down by what percentage of those who are in detention, who are being arrested in the interior of the U.S., are subject to mandatory detention?

     DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  I don’t have that in front of me, but, yes, that's a stat that we can certainly follow up with.

     Q    How many folks are in detention right now as a result of interior enforcement?  And what fraction of them have convictions for violent crimes?

     DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  I haven’t seen the numbers today because they fluctuate, but we're going to be in around twenty- or twenty-two thousand, I believe, of individuals that are there as a result of an ICE arrest.  The majority of those are going to have a criminal conviction.  Many of those individuals will be individuals who are in finals orders of removal, meaning that they've exhausted all forms of due process, they've gone through the immigration court process, and have been order-removed by an immigration judge.

And under the Immigration and Nationality Act, those are individuals subject to mandatory detention, and they're being held until we can get a travel document and get them scheduled to be removed to their countries.

     Q    Thanks very much.  One of the arguments that Democrats have been making in the last two days has been the -- given the fiscal year authority is significantly underway, there's not even time left to even spend all the money that could be appropriated for interior enforcement.  So it would be great to hear what you feel about that.

     DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  Well, I mean, we don’t necessarily get appropriated funds for interior enforcement.  So the main PPA is for ICE ERO to deal with detention and transportation.  Those are the two biggest buckets, outside of salaries and operating costs, where we're funded to perform interior enforcement.  But a lot of that detention money is solely dedicated for detaining individuals arrested at the border, by the Border Patrol.

     So, ICE has a very diverse mission within the ERO.  It's kind of a bifurcated mission whereby there's a detention entity for CBP -- whether it's somebody arrested at a port of entry or whether it's between the ports of entry -- as well as the interior enforcement mission, and then obviously, ERO is responsible for removing those individuals once order-removed by an immigration judge.

     So the President's budget asks for 52,000 beds.  That's really what we need to get the judge done.  We're managing as best as we can with the resources that we currently have, but there’s certainly no shortage of work out there.

     Q    Hi, thanks for taking my question.  Could you -- just following up on the question on violent crimes, I know you said that twenty- or twenty-two thousand are in custody for ICE arrests.  But could you say which ones of those are violent crimes?

     And then, could you also talk about whether or not you’re open to some sort of overall cap?  And if not, is it worth shutting down the government over this issue?  Or do you see that there’s some other way out other than a shutdown?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  So your second question -- I’m not a politician, I’m a career law enforcement officer, so I’m not going to speak to that.  I can tell you, from a law enforcement perspective however, putting any sort of artificial cap on our ability to do our job and to remove public safety threats from the street is damaging to public safety.

I’m not sure if you saw the letter that was put out by the National Sheriffs' Association, and that entity also walked to the Hill today to express their views about the dangerousness of ICE being limited in its ability to enforce the laws.

With regards to your first question, if you look at our FY2018 report -- it’s currently on our website, and we talked about it -- but if you look at the crimes, we have 50,000 people -- or excuse me, there were 50,000 total offenses involving assault.  There were over 2,000 offenses involving homicide.  Over 12,000 sexual offenses.  Almost 12,000 weapons offenses.

Again, our largest enforcement body within the interior of the United States is the Criminal Alien Program.  That is where the vast majority of interior arrests stem.  These are individuals that are here illegally in the United States -- many of them repeat illegal offenders -- that have gone on to commit additional crimes or be convicted of additional crimes, and are sitting in the custody of another law enforcement agency.

So what we’re saying is that these individuals who committed an act that was serious enough for the local authorities to make an arrest is also serious enough to us to take that individual off the street and remove them from the country.

Again, especially many of these individuals are repeat immigration offenders.  So that’s why, when you look at that report and you see why there’s so many immigration violators, these are individuals that have been prosecuted for immigration crimes.  And if they were prosecuted on the interior of the United States or 8 U.S.C. 1326, which is reentry after removal, the thresholds within U.S. attorneys' offices for those prosecutions are often quite high, meaning these individuals have a lengthy criminal record outside of their immigration violations.

Q    Hi.  Thanks so much for taking this call.  I wanted to clarify -- I saw your interview with MSNBC this morning.  We were talking about how much Congress has appropriated funds for some of these beds.  I understand that it’s appropriated for 40K right now, but we have 48,000 individuals.  I'm wondering where those funds are coming from.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  They're still coming out of our detention PPA.  That’s where we fund our detention beds.  So, we are funding at levels where we are able to cover the bills that we currently have.

Q    Hi, I wanted to ask how many -- is it true that many undocumented immigrants are actually in prison who are convicted of violent crimes?  My question is, the fact that they're not necessarily in ICE custody doesn’t mean that they're roaming the streets.  Correct?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  No, we will take custody of these individuals once they are released from whatever prison sentence or jail time that they are serving.  Ideally, we would get those individuals directly from the law enforcement agency or correctional agency that is maintaining custody of that individual.

Unfortunately, in many locations that consider themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, that's unable to occur.  So rather than us taking this individual in custody, many of whom are violent felons, in the safety and security of the jail, we have to put the public and our officers at greater risk by making those arrests at-large in the community.

So we will continue to take those individuals into custody.  That’s what our officers are sworn to do.  Those are laws that they have sworn to uphold and will continue to do so.

Q    Yes, hi.  So you were just mentioning the danger for ICE law enforcement officials in cities or states that are sanctuaries.  How does that affect your ability to -- like, the percent -- the number of people that you're able to pick up?  So, for example, when you have detainers and you are able to go to prison or something like that, to pick someone up -- the number of people you're able to apprehend versus when you have to go get them from the community, and the danger that it poses to law enforcement.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  If we have an individual that’s in custody in the local jurisdictions for whom we have an enforcement interest, you can generally send one or two officers to get that individual.  We can actually even send a contractor, at times, to pick up that individual.  In the safety and security of the jail, the individual is handcuffed, he's never free.  He's never in a position where he can assault the officer who is taking custody of him.  That’s a much more efficient and effective fashion to take custody of these individuals.

If we have to go out and locate them in the community, we need to send a team of officers out there to do it.  We need to do surveillance.  We need to do a significant number of record checks before we go to these residences.  And, frankly, the sanctuary jurisdiction movement is part and partial of what we are looking right now with regard to this artificial cap that’s trying to placed on detention beds.  They are trying to undermine our ability to do interior enforcement and to enforce immigration law.

Congress has every right to change the laws if they no longer like the ones that they already passed.  However, until that time, we are charged and is our mission to enforce those laws equitably, fairly, and compassionately.  And that’s what we do every day.

Q    Thank you for the call.  Do you all have a counter- proposal to what Congress has proposed?  Or do you have something where you would accept less than what you currently want from Congress?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  Again, I'm not involved in the negotiations.  That's not my job.  I can tell you that the President's budget asks for 52,000 beds, and that was informed by those of that are operators and subject-matter experts with regard to what we need, based on the resources that we have, to effectively discharge our responsibilities.

Q    Hi, thanks so much.  This debate about how many beds ICE is funded for seems to gone on for years.  This is a constant congressional debate.  Can you tell us a little bit about why it is that this number is so high this year?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  Again, the request was for 52,000 beds.  We have sophisticated modeling that we do that takes into account the number of officers we have, the number of resources, the number of border apprehensions, and tries to predict the number of beds that we actually need.  So it's those models -- which we've used for several years now very effectively, and they've proven to be very accurate -- that we use to predict what we expect our detention needs will be.  Again, it's like looking into a crystal ball; nobody knows exactly what's going to happen.  Nobody thought, this time last year, that you would see 35,000 family units a month coming to the border and turning themselves into the Border Patrol, and us having to release them because Congress hasn’t fixed the laws.

So we predict, based on knowledge, based on past trends, and then based on a cushion that provides us enough flexibility, should we hit a crisis such as we currently are in.

MR. GIDLEY:  Deputy Director, is there anything else you'd like to add before we get off the call?

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALBENCE:  No, that's it.  I appreciate everybody's time.  And we're happy you're paying attention to this.  I mean, this is a crucial public safety issue, and it's unfortunate that people are putting politics over public safety.  There really shouldn’t be a debate about us taking dangerous criminals and immigration violators off the street and out of our communities.

Without ICE, without us here in the interior of the United States, I can't reiterate enough that you will not have border security.  And I think this is -- there are people that are buying into this whole "abolish ICE" movement, and they're trying to do so through the judiciary process at this point.

MR. GIDLEY:  Thank you so much for the time.  And thank you to all the reporters, journalists who have joined the call and asked questions.  As always, the White House is available to you guys as a resource for any follow-ups.  We'll be here throughout the rest of the day and the rest of the week, so holler at us if you need us.

                        END                2:44 P.M. EST 


Office of the Press Secretary



“Continued American leadership in Artificial Intelligence is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States.” – President Donald J. Trump


ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY: President Trump is directing the Federal Government to prioritize research and development of America’s artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities.

  • Today, President Trump launched his American AI Initiative that directs Federal agencies to prioritize investments in research and development of AI.
  • The Initiative focuses Federal Government resources toward developing AI technology and ensuring that the next great AI inventions are made in the United States. Highlights include:
    • Unleashing innovation in AI by supporting long-term research and increasing access to Federal data and computing resources for America’s AI researchers;
    • Promoting a responsible approach to AI by encouraging transformative applications of AI, while continually improving outcomes for workers and users alike;
    • Preparing America’s workforce for the jobs of the future by directing Federal agencies to help Americans gain AI-relevant skills and promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education;
    • Directing regulatory agencies to establish guidance for AI development and use across technologies and industrial sectors;
    • Calling upon the National Institute of Standards and Technology to lead the development of appropriate technical and safety standards for AI systems; and
    • Protecting America’s advantage in AI by promoting an international environment that supports American AI research and industries while securing critical AI technology.
DRIVING BREAKTHROUGHS: Developing America’s ability to leverage AI is critical to increasing prosperity, enhancing our national and economic security, and protecting our values.
  • AI promises great benefits for American workers, with the potential to improve safety and increase productivity.
    • Investment in AI is critical to creating the industries of the future like autonomous cars, industrial robots, algorithms for disease diagnosis, and more.
  • Additionally, maintaining our Nation’s global leadership in AI will ensure that the technology is developed in a manner consistent with our Nation’s values, policies, and priorities.
  • However, our Nation urgently needs workers and businesses skilled in AI and capable of leading our country’s development and application of AI into the future.
  • AI must also be developed in a way that does not compromise our American values, civil liberties, or freedoms.
  • Rapid technological innovation can lead to radical improvements in society and quality of life.
VISIONARY LEADERSHIP: President Trump is committed to enacting policies that promote and protect American leadership in technological development and innovation.
  • President Trump has directed his Administration to take action to promote technical education and apprenticeships for American workers.
  • The President has taken numerous steps to promote high-quality STEM and computer science education in our schools and universities, with a particular focus on women and girls.
  • The President is also protecting our National Security Innovation Base against those who illicitly acquire America’s hard-earned intellectual property.


Office of the Press Secretary

- - - - - - -


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy and Principles.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to drive growth of the United States economy, enhance our economic and national security, and improve our quality of life. The United States is the world leader in AI research and development (R&D) and deployment.  Continued American leadership in AI is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States and to shaping the global evolution of AI in a manner consistent with our Nation's values, policies, and priorities.  The Federal Government plays an important role in facilitating AI R&D, promoting the trust of the American people in the development and deployment of AI-related technologies, training a workforce capable of using AI in their occupations, and protecting the American AI technology base from attempted acquisition by strategic competitors and adversarial nations.  Maintaining American leadership in AI requires a concerted effort to promote advancements in technology and innovation, while protecting American technology, economic and national security, civil liberties, privacy, and American values and enhancing international and industry collaboration with foreign partners and allies.  It is the policy of the United States Government to sustain and enhance the scientific, technological, and economic leadership position of the United States in AI R&D and deployment through a coordinated Federal Government strategy, the American AI Initiative (Initiative), guided by five principles:

(a)  The United States must drive technological breakthroughs in AI across the Federal Government, industry, and academia in order to promote scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and national security.

(b)  The United States must drive development of appropriate technical standards and reduce barriers to the safe testing and deployment of AI technologies in order to enable the creation of new AI-related industries and the adoption of AI by today's industries.

(c)  The United States must train current and future generations of American workers with the skills to develop and apply AI technologies to prepare them for today's economy and jobs of the future.

(d)  The United States must foster public trust and confidence in AI technologies and protect civil liberties, privacy, and American values in their application in order to fully realize the potential of AI technologies for the American people.

(e)  The United States must promote an international environment that supports American AI research and innovation and opens markets for American AI industries, while protecting our technological advantage in AI and protecting our critical AI technologies from acquisition by strategic competitors and adversarial nations.

Sec. 2.  Objectives.  Artificial Intelligence will affect the missions of nearly all executive departments and agencies (agencies).  Agencies determined to be implementing agencies pursuant to section 3 of this order shall pursue six strategic objectives in furtherance of both promoting and protecting American advancements in AI:

(a)  Promote sustained investment in AI R&D in collaboration with industry, academia, international partners and allies, and other non-Federal entities to generate technological breakthroughs in AI and related technologies and to rapidly transition those breakthroughs into capabilities that contribute to our economic and national security.

(b)  Enhance access to high-quality and fully traceable Federal data, models, and computing resources to increase the value of such resources for AI R&D, while maintaining safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality protections consistent with applicable laws and policies.

(c)  Reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies to promote their innovative application while protecting American technology, economic and national security, civil liberties, privacy, and values.

(d)  Ensure that technical standards minimize vulnerability to attacks from malicious actors and reflect Federal priorities for innovation, public trust, and public confidence in systems that use AI technologies; and develop international standards to promote and protect those priorities.

(e)  Train the next generation of American AI researchers and users through apprenticeships; skills programs; and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with an emphasis on computer science, to ensure that American workers, including Federal workers, are capable of taking full advantage of the opportunities of AI.

(f)  Develop and implement an action plan, in accordance with the National Security Presidential Memorandum of February 11, 2019 (Protecting the United States Advantage in Artificial Intelligence and Related Critical Technologies) (the NSPM) to protect the advantage of the United States in AI and technology critical to United States economic and national security interests against strategic competitors and foreign adversaries.

Sec. 3.  Roles and Responsibilities.  The Initiative shall be coordinated through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence (Select Committee).  Actions shall be implemented by agencies that conduct foundational AI R&D, develop and deploy applications of AI technologies, provide educational grants, and regulate and provide guidance for applications of AI technologies, as determined by the co-chairs of the NSTC Select Committee (implementing agencies).

Sec. 4.  Federal Investment in AI Research and Development.

(a)  Heads of implementing agencies that also perform or fund R&D (AI R&D agencies), shall consider AI as an agency R&D priority, as appropriate to their respective agencies' missions, consistent with applicable law and in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) R&D priorities memoranda.  Heads of such agencies shall take this priority into account when developing budget proposals and planning for the use of funds in Fiscal Year 2020 and in future years.  Heads of these agencies shall also consider appropriate administrative actions to increase focus on AI for 2019.

(b)  Heads of AI R&D agencies shall budget an amount for AI R&D that is appropriate for this prioritization.

(i)   Following the submission of the President's Budget request to the Congress, heads of such agencies shall communicate plans for achieving this prioritization to the OMB Director and the OSTP Director each fiscal year through the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program.

(ii)   Within 90 days of the enactment of appropriations for their respective agencies, heads of such agencies shall identify each year, consistent with applicable law, the programs to which the AI R&D priority will apply and estimate the total amount of such funds that will be spent on each such program.  This information shall be communicated to the OMB Director and OSTP Director each fiscal year through the NITRD Program.

(c)  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, heads of AI R&D agencies shall explore opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal entities, including:  the private sector; academia; non-profit organizations; State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; and foreign partners and allies, so all collaborators can benefit from each other's investment and expertise in AI R&D.

Sec. 5.  Data and Computing Resources for AI Research and Development.

(a)  Heads of all agencies shall review their Federal data and models to identify opportunities to increase access and use by the greater non-Federal AI research community in a manner that benefits that community, while protecting safety, security, privacy, and confidentiality.  Specifically, agencies shall improve data and model inventory documentation to enable discovery and usability, and shall prioritize improvements to access and quality of AI data and models based on the AI research community's user feedback.

(i)    Within 90 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to identify additional requests for access or quality improvements for Federal data and models that would improve AI R&D and testing.  Additionally, within 90 days of the date of this order, OMB, in conjunction with the Select Committee, shall investigate barriers to access or quality limitations of Federal data and models that impede AI R&D and testing.  Collectively, these actions by OMB will help to identify datasets that will facilitate non-Federal AI R&D and testing.

(ii)   Within 120 days of the date of this order, OMB, including through its interagency councils and the Select Committee, shall update implementation guidance for Enterprise Data Inventories and Source Code Inventories to support discovery and usability in AI R&D.

(iii)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, and in accordance with the implementation of the Cross-Agency Priority Goal:  Leveraging Federal Data as a Strategic Asset, from the March 2018 President's Management Agenda, agencies shall consider methods of improving the quality, usability, and appropriate access to priority data identified by the AI research community.  Agencies shall also identify any associated resource implications.

(iv)   In identifying data and models for consideration for increased public access, agencies, in coordination with the Senior Agency Officials for Privacy established pursuant to Executive Order 13719 of February 9, 2016 (Establishment of the Federal Privacy Council), the heads of Federal statistical entities, Federal program managers, and other relevant personnel shall identify any barriers to, or requirements associated with, increased access to and use of such data and models, including:

(A)  privacy and civil liberty protections for individuals who may be affected by increased access and use, as well as confidentiality protections for individuals and other data providers;

(B)  safety and security concerns, including those related to the association or compilation of data and models;

(C)  data documentation and formatting, including the need for interoperable and machine-readable data formats;

(D)  changes necessary to ensure appropriate data and system governance; and

(E)  any other relevant considerations.

(v)    In accordance with the President's Management Agenda and the Cross-Agency Priority Goal:  Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset, agencies shall identify opportunities to use new technologies and best practices to increase access to and usability of open data and models, and explore appropriate controls on access to sensitive or restricted data and models, consistent with applicable laws and policies, privacy and confidentiality protections, and civil liberty protections.

(b)  The Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Energy, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall, to the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, prioritize the allocation of high-performance computing resources for AI-related applications through:

(i)   increased assignment of discretionary allocation of resources and resource reserves; or

(ii)  any other appropriate mechanisms.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Select Committee, in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), shall submit a report to the President making recommendations on better enabling the use of cloud computing resources for federally funded AI R&D.

(d)  The Select Committee shall provide technical expertise to the American Technology Council on matters regarding AI and the modernization of Federal technology, data, and the delivery of digital services, as appropriate.

Sec. 6.  Guidance for Regulation of AI Applications.

(a)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the OMB Director, in coordination with the OSTP Director, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and the Director of the National Economic Council, and in consultation with any other relevant agencies and key stakeholders as the OMB Director shall determine, shall issue a memorandum to the heads of all agencies that shall:

(i)   inform the development of regulatory and non‑regulatory approaches by such agencies regarding technologies and industrial sectors that are either empowered or enabled by AI, and that advance American innovation while upholding civil liberties, privacy, and American values; and

(ii)  consider ways to reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies in order to promote their innovative application while protecting civil liberties, privacy, American values, and United States economic and national security.

(b)  To help ensure public trust in the development and implementation of AI applications, OMB shall issue a draft version of the memorandum for public comment before it is finalized.

(c)  Within 180 days of the date of the memorandum described in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of implementing agencies that also have regulatory authorities shall review their authorities relevant to applications of AI and shall submit to OMB plans to achieve consistency with the memorandum.

(d)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), shall issue a plan for Federal engagement in the development of technical standards and related tools in support of reliable, robust, and trustworthy systems that use AI technologies.  NIST shall lead the development of this plan with participation from relevant agencies as the Secretary of Commerce shall determine.

(i)   Consistent with OMB Circular A-119, this plan shall include:

(A) Federal priority needs for standardization of AI systems development and deployment;

(B) identification of standards development entities in which Federal agencies should seek membership with the goal of establishing or supporting United States technical leadership roles; and

(C) opportunities for and challenges to United States leadership in standardization related to AI technologies.

(ii)  This plan shall be developed in consultation with the Select Committee, as needed, and in consultation with the private sector, academia, non‑governmental entities, and other stakeholders, as appropriate.

Sec. 7.  AI and the American Workforce.

(a)  Heads of implementing agencies that also provide educational grants shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, consider AI as a priority area within existing Federal fellowship and service programs.

(i)   Eligible programs for prioritization shall give preference to American citizens, to the extent permitted by law, and shall include:

(A)  high school, undergraduate, and graduate fellowship; alternative education; and training programs;

(B)  programs to recognize and fund early-career university faculty who conduct AI R&D, including through Presidential awards and recognitions;

(C)  scholarship for service programs;

(D)  direct commissioning programs of the United States Armed Forces; and

(E)  programs that support the development of instructional programs and curricula that encourage the integration of AI technologies into courses in order to facilitate personalized and adaptive learning experiences for formal and informal education and training.

(ii)  Agencies shall annually communicate plans for achieving this prioritization to the co-chairs of the Select Committee.

(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Select Committee shall provide recommendations to the NSTC Committee on STEM Education regarding AI-related educational and workforce development considerations that focus on American citizens.

(c)  The Select Committee shall provide technical expertise to the National Council for the American Worker on matters regarding AI and the American workforce, as appropriate.

Sec. 8.  Action Plan for Protection of the United States Advantage in AI Technologies.

(a)  As directed by the NSPM, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, in coordination with the OSTP Director and the recipients of the NSPM, shall organize the development of an action plan to protect the United States advantage in AI and AI technology critical to United States economic and national security interests against strategic competitors and adversarial nations.

(b)  The action plan shall be provided to the President within 120 days of the date of this order, and may be classified in full or in part, as appropriate.

(c)  Upon approval by the President, the action plan shall be implemented by all agencies who are recipients of the NSPM, for all AI-related activities, including those conducted pursuant to this order.

Sec. 9.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(a)  the term "artificial intelligence" means the full extent of Federal investments in AI, to include:  R&D of core AI techniques and technologies; AI prototype systems; application and adaptation of AI techniques; architectural and systems support for AI; and cyberinfrastructure, data sets, and standards for AI; and

(b)  the term "open data" shall, in accordance with OMB Circular A-130 and memorandum M-13-13, mean "publicly available data structured in a way that enables the data to be fully discoverable and usable by end users."

Sec. 10.  General Provisions.

(a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

    February 11, 2019.

The GoldFish Report No. 331- Week 108 POTUS Report : Media BOOMerang Time!

Uploaded on Feb 11, 2019

On The GoldFish Report No 331, Louisa reports on the new POTUS EO about Artificial Intelligence, New QAnon and the MSM BOOMerang mission, FISA Arrests, Military Tribunals, NeoCOns failed Coup in Venezuela and more. Jim reports on Venezuela, Pompeo links Iran Hezbollah to Crisis in Venezuela, POTUS State of the Union, Rand Paul on Syria-Afghanistan, Dems Claim to Lead Legal Challenge Against Wall, CNN and FBI worked together on Stone raid, Police State goes full Orwellian, More Media Censorship, Russia Hoax Comes Apart and more. To learn more about Jim Fetzer's research, books and articles, visit Google 'Nobody Died at Sandy Hook' to find a free DVD of the facts. To receive our Reports you can subscribe to our BITCHUTE Channel at and to become a Patron of The GoldFish Report you can go to our Patreon page at . You can also subscribe to our "NEW" YouTube channel at, and, follow us on Twitter at @ReportGoldfish, you can also follow us and like us on our 24/7 research news page at and to help support these and other programs please visit to make a donation. Thank you for your support and Thank you for viewing. Visit our NEW Vimeo on Demand to view our Educational Country Roads Reports at this link here: To View our NEW Educational Bullet Points Reports use this link here: For viewer support of The GoldFish Report's Project "The Road to the White House", Please donate at at out PayPal or become a patron at Jim Website page: To View The GoldFish Report's POTUS Reports, you can visit our BitChute page or view the unlisted report on YouTube from our POTUS Report page on our website at Weblink to Moon Rock Books Here: Jim Fetzer on Twitter: @JimFezer DISCLAIMER The following videos were created for educational purposes only. The content of this material strictly for research purposes, and readily available to the general public via the Internet. Viewing of the GoldFish Reports acknowledges that senders and recipients hereby agree to this disclaimer, thus releasing the source author from any and all personal liability. Also, individuals who alter or deviate from this source material, may be exposing themselves to the full extent of law. THE OPINIONS AND HYPOTHESES OF OUR GUESTS AND GUEST CO-HOSTS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GOLDFISH REPORT POTUS UPDATE. AN OPINION AND HYPOTHESIS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH NEWLY PRESENTED RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE. THE GOLDFISH REPORT POTUS REPORT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INFORMATION THAT MAY BE UNKNOWINGLY INACCURATE, ALTHOUGH WE DO OUR BEST TO PRESENT FACTS, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF WORLD EVENTS AND HOW THOSE MAKING THE DECISIONS MAY IMPACT OUR LIVES. VIEWER DISCERNMENT IS ADVISED. Copyright 2019 The GoldFish Report. All rights Reserved.


Office of the Press Secretary


“Public optimism in their personal economy has hit a 16-year high under President Trump”

Boom: Best economic optimism in 16 years, 50% ‘better off’ under Trump
Paul Bedard
Washington Examiner
February 11, 2019

Public optimism in their personal economy has hit a 16-year high under President Trump, according to a new survey.

Some 69 percent told Gallup that they expect their personal finances to be even better next year, just shy of the record 71 percent when the internet boom was raging under former President Bill Clinton.

What’s more, the survey company said that 50 percent believe they are "better off” than just a year ago when the current economic surge was kicking in and when the White House coined the phrase “MAGAnomics.”

Gallup said that is the first time the level has reach 50 percent since 2007.
“Americans' optimism about their personal finances has climbed to levels not seen in more than 16 years, with 69 percent now saying they expect to be financially better off 'at this time next year,'" said Gallup.


Read the full article here.


Office of the Press Secretary


“This approach compares favorably with the one the Obama administration took toward Iran, never demanding an end to nuclear programs and settling for a deal that came nowhere close.”

Trump Is Serious About Diplomacy With North Korea
By Tod Lindberg
The Wall Street Journal
February 6, 2019


The new tack was made clear in a detailed speech given at Stanford last week by Stephen E. Biegun, the U.S. special envoy to North Korea. Mr. Biegun firmly reiterated the administration’s objective: “the final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea.”

This approach compares favorably with the one the Obama administration took toward Iran, never demanding an end to nuclear programs and settling for a deal that came nowhere close. When Mr. Trump ditched the Iran deal before engaging North Korea, he signaled his commitment to stricter terms in his talks with Mr. Kim. Mr. Trump’s critics assume the administration will settle for cosmetic changes rather than denuclearization, but its actions and its unified message lay down a very different marker.

Mr. Biegun was even more blunt in the question-and-answer period after his speech. “I don’t mince my words when I say that [Mr. Trump] is unconstrained by the assumptions of his predecessors,” he said. “President Trump is ready to end this war. It is over. It is done. We are not going to invade North Korea. We are not seeking to topple the North Korean regime.” Disapproval of North Korea is not a policy, and the expression of disapproval is not diplomacy.

The special envoy also made clear that the diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea is personal. He described negotiations as “top down”—the product of commitments Messrs. Trump and Kim personally make to each other. Usually political leaders meet only after subordinates have ironed out details.

President Trump’s diplomacy is in some ways more 19th-century than 21st. He has shed President Obama’s view that history has a “right side,” which America’s rivals will eventually seek to join. Mr. Obama’s Iran deal was premised on Tehran’s voluntarily abandoning its radicalism and deciding to join the peaceful, modern world. The Trump administration makes no such assumption about North Korea’s eventual benevolence.



Read the full op-ed here.