Proclamation on Amendment to Proclamation 10052

Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2020 AMENDMENT TO PROCLAMATION 10052 - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION        By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby amend Proclamation 10052 of June 22, 2020 (Suspension of Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak), as follows:      Section 1.  Amendment.  Section 3(a)(ii) is amended to read as follows:           "(ii)   does not have a nonimmigrant visa, of any of the classifications specified in section 2 of this proclamation and pursuant to which the alien is seeking entry, that is valid on the effective date of this proclamation; and"      Sec. 2.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this proclamation 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 the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.      (b)  This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.      (c)  This proclamation 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.      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.                                                     DONALD J. TRUMP

Proclamation to Take Certain Actions Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act and for Other Purposes

Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2020 TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS UNDER THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO-CANADA AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION        1.  On November 30, 2018, the United States, Mexico, and Canada entered into the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (the "USMCA"), attached as an Annex to the Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement with the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (the "Protocol"), and on December 10, 2019, the United States, Mexico, and Canada amended the USMCA through the Protocol of Amendment to the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada.  The Congress approved the Protocol and the USMCA, as amended, in section 101(a) of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act (the "USMCA Implementation Act")(Public Law 116-113, 134 Stat. 11, 14 (19 U.S.C. 4511(a))).      2.  On April 24, 2020, pursuant to authority delegated to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the USTR submitted to the Congress the written notice required under section 106(a)(1)(G) of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (title I of Public Law 114-26, 129 Stat. 319, 350 (19 U.S.C. 4205(a)(1)(G))) and, in accordance with section 101(b) of the USMCA Implementation Act, notified the Congress that the USMCA will enter into force on July 1, 2020.      3.  Section 103(c)(1) of the USMCA Implementation Act authorizes the President to proclaim such modifications or continuation of any duty, such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply articles 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 6.2, and 6.3, the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B, including the appendices to that Annex, Annex 2-C, and Annex 6-A of the USMCA.      4.  Section 103(c)(4) of the USMCA Implementation Act requires the President to take such actions as may be necessary in implementing the tariff-rate quotas set forth in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of the USMCA to ensure that imports of agricultural goods do not disrupt the orderly marketing of agricultural goods in the United States.      5.  Section 103(c)(5)(A) of the USMCA Implementation Act authorizes the President to proclaim, as part of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the provisions set forth in Annex 4-B; the provisions set forth in paragraph 2 of article 3.A.6 of Annex 3-A; the provisions set forth in paragraph 5 of Annex 3-B; and the provisions set forth in paragraphs 14(b), 14(c), and 15(e) of section B of Appendix 2 to Annex 2-B of the USMCA.      6.  Section 103(c)(5)(A) of the USMCA Implementation Act also authorizes the President to proclaim any additional subordinate category that is necessary to carry out section 202 and section 202A of the USMCA Implementation Act consistent with the USMCA.      7.  Section 103(c)(5)(B) of the USMCA Implementation Act authorizes the President to proclaim modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the authority of section 103(c)(5)(A), subject to the consultation and layover provisions of section 104, as are necessary to implement an agreement under article 6.4 of the USMCA.      8.  Section 105(a) of the USMCA Implementation Act authorizes the President to establish or designate within the Department of Commerce an office to serve as the United States Section of the Secretariat established under article 30.6 of the USMCA.      9.  Section 202 of the USMCA Implementation Act sets forth certain rules for determining whether a good is an originating good for purposes of implementing preferential tariff treatment provided for under the USMCA.  Section 202A of the USMCA Implementation Act sets forth certain rules for determining whether certain automotive goods are originating goods for purposes of implementing preferential tariff treatment provided for under the USMCA.  I have decided that it is necessary to include the rules of origin set forth in sections 202 and 202A of the USMCA Implementation Act in the HTS.      10.  Section 207 of the USMCA Implementation Act authorizes the President to take certain actions relating to trade with Canada and Mexico, including with respect to textile and apparel goods.      11.  Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972 (Textile Trade Agreements), as amended, established the Committee for Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), consisting of representatives of the Departments of State, the Treasury, Commerce, and Labor, and the Office of the USTR, with the representative of the Department of Commerce as Chairman, to supervise the implementation of textile trade agreements.  Consistent with section 301 of title 3, United States Code, when carrying out functions vested in the President by statute and assigned by the President to the CITA, the officials collectively exercising those functions are all to be officers required to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.      12.  Section 324 of the USMCA Implementation Act authorizes the President to take certain actions if the United States International Trade Commission (the "Commission") finds that United States long-haul trucking services are being, or are threatened with being, materially harmed.      13.  Section 611(a) of the USMCA Implementation Act requires the President to consult with the appropriate congressional committees and stakeholders before each joint review under article 34.7 of the USMCA.      14.  Section 1206(a) of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the "1988 Act") (Public Law 100‑418, 102 Stat. 1107, 1151 (19 U.S.C. 3006(a))) authorizes the President to proclaim modifications to the HTS based on the recommendations of the Commission under section 1205 of the 1988 Act (19 U.S.C. 3005) if the President determines that the modifications are in conformity with United States obligations under the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (the "Convention") and do not run counter to the national economic interest of the United States.      15.  In Proclamation 9549 of December 1, 2016, pursuant to section 1206(a) of the 1988 Act, the President proclaimed modifications to the HTS to conform it to the Convention, to promote the uniform application of the Convention, to establish additional subordinate tariff categories, and to make technical and conforming changes to existing provisions.  These modifications to the HTS were set forth in Annex I of Publication 4653 of the Commission, which was incorporated by reference into the proclamation.      16.  On May 6, 2003, the President entered into the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (the "USSFTA").  The USSFTA was approved by the Congress in section 101(a) of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the "USSFTA Act") (Public Law 108-78, 117 Stat. 948, 949 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).      17.  Proclamation 7747 of December 30, 2003, implemented the USSFTA with respect to the United States and, pursuant to the USSFTA Act, incorporated in the HTS the schedule of duty reductions and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the USSFTA.      18.  Section 201 of the USSFTA Act authorizes the President to proclaim such modifications or continuation of any duty, such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply articles 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.12 and Annex 2B (including the schedule of United States duty reductions with respect to originating goods) of the USSFTA.  The United States and Singapore are parties to the Convention.      19.  I have determined that, pursuant to section 201 of the USSFTA Act and section 1206(a) of the 1988 Act, modifications to the HTS are necessary or appropriate to ensure the continuation of tariff and certain other treatment accorded to originating goods under tariff categories modified in Proclamation 9549 and to carry out the duty reductions proclaimed in Proclamation 7747.      20.  On November 22, 2006, the United States entered into the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the "USCTPA"), and on June 28, 2007, the United States and Colombia amended the USCTPA.  The Congress approved the USCTPA, as amended, in section 101(a) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the "USCTPA Act") (Public Law 112-42, 125 Stat. 462, 463–64 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).      21.  Proclamation 8818 of May 14, 2012, implemented the USCTPA with respect to the United States and, pursuant to sections 201(a) and 203(o) of the USCTPA Act, incorporated in the HTS the schedule of duty reductions and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the USCTPA.      22.  Section 201 of the USCTPA Act authorizes the President to proclaim such modifications or continuation of any duty, such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 3.1.13, and Annex 2.3 (including the schedule of United States duty reductions with respect to originating goods) of the USCTPA.  The United States and Colombia are parties to the Convention.      23.  I have determined that, pursuant to section 201 of the USCTPA Act and section 1206(a) of the 1988 Act, modifications to the HTS are necessary or appropriate to ensure the continuation of tariff and certain other treatment accorded to originating goods under tariff categories modified in Proclamation 9549 and to carry out the duty reductions proclaimed in Proclamation 8818.      24.  Section 203 of the USCTPA Act provides rules for determining whether goods imported into the United States originate in the territory of a party to the USCTPA and thus are eligible for the tariff and other treatment contemplated under the USCTPA.  A rule of origin was inadvertently omitted from general note 34 to the HTS in Proclamation 8818.  I have determined that a technical correction to general note 34 to the HTS is necessary to provide for the intended tariff and certain other treatment accorded under the USCTPA to originating goods of Colombia.      25.  On June 30, 2007, the United States entered into the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the "KORUS").  The Congress approved the KORUS in section 101(a) of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the "KORUS Act") (Public Law 112-41, 125 Stat. 428, 430 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).      26.  Proclamation 8783 of March 6, 2012, implemented the KORUS with respect to the United States and, pursuant to sections 201(a) and 202(o) of the KORUS Act, incorporated in the HTS the tariff modifications and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the KORUS.      27.  Section 202 of the KORUS Act provides rules for determining whether goods imported into the United States originate in the territory of a party to the KORUS and thus are eligible for the tariff and other treatment contemplated under the KORUS.  Section 202(o)(2)(B)(i) of the KORUS Act authorizes the President to proclaim, as a part of the HTS, the rules of origin set forth in the KORUS, and, subject to the consultation and layover requirements of section 104, to proclaim modifications to such previously proclaimed rules of origin.      28.  The United States and Korea have agreed to modify a certain rule of origin under the KORUS and to apply the modified rule to their bilateral trade.  On August 14, 2019, in accordance with section 104 of the KORUS Act, the USTR submitted a report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives that sets forth the proposed modification to the specific textile rule of origin of the KORUS incorporated in the HTS.  The consultation and layover period specified in section 104 expired on October 14, 2019.      29.  In order to reflect the agreement between the United States and Korea related to the KORUS rules of origin, I have determined that it is necessary to modify the HTS.      30.  Proclamation 8783 inadvertently omitted a rule of origin from general note 33 to the HTS.  I have determined that a technical correction to general note 33 to the HTS is necessary to provide for the intended tariff and certain other treatment accorded under the KORUS to originating goods of Korea.      31.  On June 28, 2007, the United States entered into the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (the "USPATPA").  The Congress approved the USPATPA in section 101(a) of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the "USPATPA Act") (Public Law 112-43, 125 Stat. 497, 498–99 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).      32.  Proclamation 8894 of October 29, 2012, implemented the USPATPA with respect to the United States, and, pursuant to sections 201(a) and 203(o) of the USPATPA Act, incorporated in the HTS the tariff modifications and rules of origin necessary or appropriate to carry out the USPATPA.      33.  Section 203 of the USPATPA Act provides rules for determining whether goods imported into the United States originate in the territory of a party to the USPATPA and thus are eligible for the tariff and other treatment contemplated under the USPATPA.      34.  A rule of origin was inadvertently omitted from general note 35 to the HTS in Proclamation 8894.  I have determined that a technical correction to general note 35 to the HTS is necessary to provide for the intended tariff and certain other treatment accorded under the USPATPA to originating goods of Panama.      35.  In Proclamation 9955 of October 25, 2019, after considering the factors set forth in sections 501 and 502(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (the "1974 Act") (Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1978, 2066–69 (19 U.S.C. 2461 and 2462(c))), and in particular section 502(c)(7) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(c)(7)), I suspended the duty-free treatment accorded under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) (19 U.S.C. 2461 et seq.) to certain eligible articles that are the product of Thailand.  In order to reflect in the HTS this suspension of certain benefits under the GSP with respect to Thailand, Annex 2 of Proclamation 9955 modified general note 4(d) and certain subheadings of the HTS.      36.  Section 604 of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2483) authorizes the President to embody in the HTS the substance of the relevant provisions of that Act, and of other Acts affecting import treatment, and actions thereunder, including removal, modification, continuance, or imposition of any rate of duty or other import restriction.      37.  Annex 2 of Proclamation 9955 inadvertently omitted changes with respect to seven subheadings of the HTS.  I have determined, pursuant to section 604 of the 1974 Act, that it is necessary to modify the HTS to correct those inadvertent omissions so that the intended tariff treatment is provided.      38.  Proclamation 9466 of June 30, 2016, modified the HTS to provide for the tariff treatment of goods covered by the 2015 World Trade Organization Declaration on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, pursuant to section 111(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103–465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4819–20 (19 U.S.C. 3521(b))).  Proclamation 9466 modified the HTS in part by deleting all rates of duty in the "Rates of Duty 1-Special" subcolumn for certain subheadings.      39.  In Proclamation 9687 of December 22, 2017, after considering the factors set forth in section 502(b) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)), and in particular section 502(b)(2)(E) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2)(E)), I terminated the suspension of Argentina's designation as a GSP beneficiary developing country.  In order to reflect in the HTS the termination of the suspension of Argentina's designation as a GSP beneficiary developing country, Annex IV of Proclamation 9687 modified general note 4(d) and certain subheadings of the HTS.        40.  In Proclamation 9687, after considering the factors set forth in sections 501 and 502(c) of the 1974 Act, and in particular section 502(c)(5) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2462(c)(5)), I suspended the duty-free treatment accorded under the GSP to certain eligible articles that are the product of Ukraine.  In order to reflect in the HTS the suspension of certain benefits with respect to Ukraine, Annex III of Proclamation 9687 modified general note 4(d) and certain subheadings of the HTS.      41.  Proclamation 9687 inadvertently modified general note 4(d) to the HTS to include certain subheadings for which the rates of duty in the "Rates of Duty 1-Special" subcolumn were deleted by Proclamation 9466.  I have determined, pursuant to section 604 of the 1974 Act, that it is necessary to modify the HTS to reflect the deletion of the rates of duty in the "Rates of Duty 1-Special" column for those subheadings.      NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, acting under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 103(c), 105(a), 207, 324, and 611(a) of the USMCA Implementation Act; section 1206(a) of the 1988 Act; section 201 of the USSFTA Act; sections 201 and 203(o) of the USCTPA Act; sections 201 and 202(o) of the KORUS Act; sections 201 and 203(o) of the USPATPA Act; section 604 of the 1974 Act; and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, do proclaim that:      (1)  In order to provide generally for the preferential tariff treatment being accorded under the USMCA, to set forth rules for determining whether goods imported into the customs territory of the United States are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA, to provide tariff-rate quotas with respect to certain originating goods of Canada, and to provide certain other treatment to originating goods for purposes of the USMCA, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex I of Publication 5060 of the Commission, entitled "Modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to Implement the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement" (Publication 5060).  Publication 5060 is incorporated by reference into this proclamation.      (2)  In order to implement the initial stage of duty reduction provided for in the USMCA, to provide for future staged reductions in duties for originating goods provided for in the USMCA, and to provide tariff-rate quotas with respect to certain goods provided for in the USMCA, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex II of Publication 5060.      (3)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the dates indicated in Annexes I and II of Publication 5060.      (4)  In order to reflect in the HTS the termination of tariff treatment under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex III of Publication 5060.      (5)  The USTR is authorized to exercise my authority under section 103(c)(4) of the USMCA Implementation Act to take such action as may be necessary in implementing the tariff-rate quotas set forth in the Schedule of the United States to Annex 2-B of the USMCA to ensure that imports of agricultural goods do not disrupt the orderly marketing of agricultural goods in the United States.  This action is set forth in Annex II of Publication 5060.      (6)  The CITA, after consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (the "Commissioner"), is authorized to consult with representatives of Canada and Mexico for the purpose of identifying particular textile or apparel goods that are mutually agreed to be hand-loomed fabrics of a cottage industry, hand-made cottage industry goods made of those hand-loomed fabrics, traditional folklore handicraft goods, or indigenous handicraft goods, as provided in article 6.2 of the USMCA.  The CITA is authorized to exercise my authority under section 103(c)(1) of the USMCA Implementation Act to provide duty-free treatment with respect to a good provided for under article 6.2 of the USMCA.  The Commissioner shall take action as directed by the CITA to carry out any such determination by the CITA.      (7)  The USTR is authorized to fulfill the obligations of the President under section 104 of the USMCA Implementation Act to obtain advice from the appropriate advisory committees and the Commission on the proposed implementation of an action by Presidential proclamation; to submit a report on such proposed action to the appropriate congressional committees; and to consult with those congressional committees regarding the proposed action.      (8)  The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to exercise the authority of the President under section 105(a) of the USMCA Implementation Act to establish or designate an office within the Department of Commerce to carry out the functions set forth in that section.      (9)  The CITA is authorized to review requests for modifications to a rule of origin for textile and apparel goods based on a change in the availability in the territories of the United States, Canada, and Mexico of a particular fiber, yarn, or fabric; to establish procedures governing such a request, providing that the person making the request bears the burden of demonstrating that a change is warranted, and ensuring appropriate public participation in review of a request; and to make a recommendation as to whether a requested modification to a rule of origin for a textile good based on a change in the availability of a particular fiber, yarn, or fabric is warranted.      (10)  The CITA is authorized to exercise my authority under section 207(a)(2)(B) of the USMCA Implementation Act to direct appropriate action under section 207(a)(2)(D) with respect to textile and apparel goods.      (11)  The CITA is authorized to exercise my authority under section 207(a)(1)(B) of the UMSCA Implementation Act to direct action under section 207(c) with respect to textile and apparel goods.      (12)  The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to exercise my authority under section 207(a)(1)(B) of the USMCA Implementation Act to direct action under section 207(a)(1)(B)(i) or section 207(c) with respect to goods other than textile or apparel goods.      (13)  The USTR is authorized, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to exercise my authority under section 324 of the USMCA Implementation Act.      (14)  The USTR is authorized to exercise the function assigned to the President under section 611(a) of the USMCA Implementation Act to consult with the appropriate congressional committees and stakeholders regarding joint reviews under article 34.7 of the USMCA.      (15)  In order to reflect in the HTS the modifications to the rules of origin under the USSFTA, general note 25 to the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex IV of Publication 5060.      (16)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (15) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the date indicated in Annex IV of Publication 5060.      (17)  In order to reflect in the HTS the modifications to the rules of origin under the USCTPA, general note 34 to the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex V of Publication 5060.      (18)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (17) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the date indicated in Annex V of Publication 5060.      (19)  In order to implement agreed amendments to a textile rule of origin under the KORUS, general note 33 to the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex VI of Publication 5060.      (20)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (19) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the date indicated in Annex VI of Publication 5060.      (21)  In order to make technical corrections necessary to provide the intended rules of origin under the USCTPA, the KORUS, and the USPATPA, the HTS is modified as set forth in Annex VII of Publication 5060.      (22)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (21) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the dates indicated in Annex VII of Publication 5060.      (23)  In order to provide the intended tariff treatment with respect to certain articles that are the product of Thailand, general note 4(d) and pertinent subheadings of the HTS are modified as set forth in Annex VIII of Publication 5060.      (24)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (23) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the date indicated in Annex VIII of Publication 5060.      (25)  In order to make technical corrections to reflect the rates of duty in the "Rates of Duty 1-Special" subcolumn for certain subheadings with respect to certain articles of Argentina and Ukraine, general note 4(d) and pertinent subheadings of the HTS are modified as set forth in Annex IX of Publication 5060.      (26)  The modifications to the HTS made by paragraph (25) of this proclamation shall enter into effect on the date indicated in Annex IX of Publication 5060.      (27)  Any provisions of previous proclamations and Executive Orders that are inconsistent with the actions taken in this proclamation are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.                                                     DONALD J. TRUMP

1600 Daily The White House • June 29, 2020 President Trump will Protect American History

The White House • June 29, 2020 President Trump will protect American history For more than a month, there has been a sustained assault on American civilians, law enforcement officers, public and private property, and national treasures such as the Lincoln Memorial. These attacks aren’t the actions of peaceful protesters—they are the violent criminal acts of rioters, arsonists, anarchists, and left-wing extremists. On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order to protect America’s monuments, memorials, and statues from those who seek to erase our history. “They’re tearing down statues, desecrating monuments, and purging dissenters,” the President said. “It’s not the behavior of a peaceful political movement; it’s the behavior of totalitarians and tyrants and people that don’t love our country.” Under the new order, any person who causes willful damage to federal property will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. President Trump will not tolerate violence and intimidation from a mob to impose its fringe ideology on law-abiding citizens.  Press Sec: “Anarchy in our streets is unacceptable, and anger is not enough.” President Trump’s latest action also allows federal support to be withheld from state and local law enforcement agencies who fail to protect such monuments and memorials. It is the sacred first duty of America’s leaders—federal, state, and local—to ensure domestic tranquility and defend the life, property, and rights of our citizens. In a letter to Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Friday, President Trump offered a partnership to end the violence in Chicago and bring about real change. “If you are willing to put partisanship aside,” the President wrote, “we can revitalize distressed neighborhoods in Chicago, together. But to succeed, you must establish law and order.” Across our country, provocateurs who are ignorant of American history are attempting to rewrite it. Some politicians hope to appease this mob by negotiating with the extremists who are destroying their communities and even claiming entire city blocks. President Trump is standing up to these anarchists. Peaceful protesters deserve to be heard. Violent rioters deserve to be arrested. Real leaders can tell the difference. Read President Trump’s letter on the violence in Chicago. MORE: Administration takes action to protect America’s history from the mobs ‘Our moral obligation is to the American workers’ President Trump signed two executive orders on Friday at the sixth meeting of the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board, a committee co-chaired by Ivanka Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. The first order directs federal agencies to replace one-size-fits-all, degree-based hiring with skills-based hiring. Unnecessary degree requirements exclude otherwise qualified Americans from federal employment, impose the expense of college on prospective workers, and disproportionately harm low-income Americans. The second order continues President Trump’s National Council for the American Worker through at least next September. The President’s Pledge to America’s Workers has been signed by more than 400 companies and organizations. Together, these employers have pledged career training and development opportunities for over 16 million American workers—and counting.  Ivanka Trump: This President is leading by example Learn more: Putting skills before degrees in federal hiring Photo of the Day President Trump signs an Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence | June 26, 2020

ONE NOMINATION SENT TO THE SENATE

Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2020

NOMINATION SENT TO THE SENATE:      Christopher P. Vincze, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States International Development Finance Corporation for a term of three years.  (New Position)

PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY KAYLEIGH MCENANY James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2020

PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY KAYLEIGH MCENANY James S. Brady Press Briefing Room   1:25 P.M. EDT      MS. MCENANY:  Hello, everyone.  Law and order are the building blocks to the American Dream, but if anarchy prevails, this dream comes crum- -- comes crumbling down.  Anarchy in our streets is unacceptable, and anger is not enough.  You have a President committed to action.      The DOJ has arrested over 100 anarchists for rioting and destruction of federal property.  The DOJ has also charged four men in federal court for attempting to tear down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square.  The FBI has over 200 open domestic terrorism investigations ongoing.  AG Barr has created a task force on violent anti-government extremists led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Northern Texas.      With 200 Trump-appointed judges confirmed, the rule of law will be upheld.  Democrats at all lev- -- at all levels -- federal, state, and local -- have done nothing.  Senate Democrats blocked bipartisan police reform.  Minnesota's Democrat governor failed to urgently deploy the National Guard -- it took President Trump for that to eventually happen; his suggestion -- and the ultimate descendance into chaos there in Minneapolis.      Three Democrat Minneapolis councilmembers voted to abolish the police, while they themselves were getting a private security detail.  That's quite rich.      Democrat mayor of Seattle called the CHOP zone -- the autonomous zone -- “the summer of love.”  It is anything but that with one dead, multiple shootings, and desperate pleas for help unanswered by business owners and others.      Eleven people were shot in 12 hours this weekend in the Democrat-run New York City.  And 61 people were shot in Democrat-run Chicago, and 15 fatally killed -- a Democrat state, a Democrat city.      President Trump stands against defunding our brave police officers, caving to mob rule, and cancel culture which seeks to erase our history.      Let's be clear: The rampant destruction of statues is not a part of any ideology, but this anarchy is aided by failed Democrat leadership.  And as President Trump has tweeted, these statues, quote, “are great works of art, but all represent our History & Heritage, both the good and the bad.  It is important for us to understand and remember, even in turbulent and difficult times, and to learn from them.”      So let's stand for law and order, for peace in our streets, and against anarchy.  This is President Trump's vision for the future.      And with that, I'll take questions.      Kristin.      Q    Thank you, Kayleigh.  I know you said that President Trump was never briefed on these reports about the Russian bounties and whatnot, but can you say that he was briefed today?      MS. MCENANY:  Look, I’ll say this: that the U.S. receives thousands of reports a day on intelligence, and they are subject to strict scrutiny.  While the White House does not routinely comment on alleged intelligence or internal deliberations, the CIA Director; NSA -- National Security Advisor; and the Chief of Staff can all confirm that neither the President nor the Vice President were briefed on the alleged Russia -- Russian bounty intelligence.      Q    But has he been since briefed since all of these reports came out?      MS. MCENANY:  So, let me back up and say this: that there is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations, and, in effect, there are dissenting opinions from some in the intelligence community with regards to the veracity of what's being reported.  And the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated.      Q    And one more question, if I could: Was he upset that this intelligence was reportedly shared with the British government, but not him?      MS. MCENANY:  I have no further comment on that, other than to just point you back to the two assertions that I made previously.      Kristen.      Q    Thank you, Kayleigh.  How could the President not be briefed on the Russia bounty story?  Was he out of the loop by his own intelligence community?      MS. MCENANY:  No.  As I noted, there was not a consensus among the intelligence community.  And, in fact, there were dissenting opinions within the intelligence community, and it would not be elevated to the President until it was verified.      Q    President Trump tweeted overnight, “Intel just spoke [reported] to me…”  What specifically does that mean?  Who spoke to him?  Did that person, in fact, give the President a full briefing in that conversation?      MS. MCENANY:  So, I have no further details on the President's private correspondence.      Q    And can you tell us who is coming to the White House today, and who is going to brief those lawmakers?      MS. MCENANY:  So, what I can tell you about that is that, last night, the Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, called both Senator McConnell and Congressman Hoyer and bri- -- and said that he would be briefing eight members from the committees of jurisdiction.      So there was a bipartisan invitation extended, but no further details other than that.      Q    Is that briefing going to happen today, Kayleigh?      MS. MCENANY:  Yes, it was ongoing at the time when I came out here -- at least it had started, I think, 30 minutes prior to me coming out here.      Q    But they're going to come to the White -- just -- I just want to be clear about what's happening.  Members of Congress have come or are coming to the White House?      MS. MCENANY:  Yes.      Kaitlan.      Q    Okay, I have two questions.  One: Isn’t it concerning that there was even a hint of credibility to this report that the Russians were offering to pay Taliban-linked militants to kill American troops, and the President was not told about it?  Has the National Security Advisor or anyone explained why they didn't think it rose to the level that the Commander-in- Chief should find out about it?      MS. MCENANY:  So, intelligence is verified before it reaches the President of the United States.  And in this case, it was not verified.      I would note this, though: When the President -- there is no stronger advocate for our servicemen and women than President Trump.  He never hesitates to act when there is a threat to our servicemen and women -- for example, in Syria, in 2018, when dozens -- dozens of Russian mercenaries were killed in retaliatory defensive U.S.-led strikes.      So when our adversaries have directly targeted U.S. or coalition partners, the President has not hesitated to act.  But this was not briefed up to the President because it was not, in fact, verified.      Q    So I understand it has to be verified, but not everything in his daily briefings or in the Presidential Daily Brief -- that’s the written document -- is airtight.  They let the President know about what they are hearing.  That’s why it's intelligence.  So why would that not have been something that rose to that level if, you know, we’re sharing it with other countries?      MS. MCENANY:  The National Security Council and the intelligence community constantly evaluate intelligence reports, and they brief the President as necessary.      Q    Okay, so my other --      MS. MCENANY:  Darlene      Q    -- question is: If this does be borne out to where the President believes that it is true, what is he going to do to hold Russia accountable?  And is he still going to invite Vladimir Putin to the G7, G8 -- whatever he's thinking about -- in the fall?      MS. MCENANY:  I won't speculate on whether this intelligence is verified or not verified, and I won't get ahead of the President on further actions.  But I would just point out that no one is --      Q    But the intelligence officials are not disputing that --      MS. MCENANY:  No one --      Q    -- this is not true.      MS. MCENANY:  No one -- there are --      Q    Ratcliffe is not disputing this.      MS. MCENANY:  There are dissenting opinions within the intelligence community, and I can confirm with you right now that there is no consensus within the intelligence community on these allegations.  And further, I would just point out -- I won't get ahead of the President on actions, but with regard to Russia, this President has been extremely strong on Russia: imposing sanctions on hundreds of Russian individuals, expelling dozens of diplomats, closing two Russian consulates, withdrawing from the INF Treaty, and several other actions.      Q    So, who is disputing it in the intelligence community?      MS. MCENANY:  I have no further -- no further notifications for you, other than to tell you there's no consensus and there are dissenting opinions from some within the intelligence community.      Q    So you guys do not think this is true?  You don’t think this report is true?      MS. MCENANY:  I’m telling you this: that there is no consensus in the intelligence community, and that the dissenting opinions from some of the intelligence community exists.      Darlene.      Q    Thank you, Kayleigh.  I wanted to go back to the tweet the President tweeted yesterday and then removed.  This morning, you said that he didn't hear the phrase “white power” in a portion of the video, and that when it was signaled to him that that was there, he took the tweet down.  So does the President retweet other people's tweets and videos without knowing the full contents of what he's retweeting?      MS. MCENANY:  No, he did not hear that particular phrase when he tweeted out the video, and --      Q    Did he listen to the video before retweeting it?      MS. MCENANY:  He did, and he did not hear that particular phrase.      Q    Also, given your opening, do you have any comment on Mississippi taking steps to remove the Confederate emblem on the state flag?      MS. MCENANY:  I would say that that's a decision for Mississippi to make.  And it's commendable that they took this action in a lawful manner and took the appropriate steps rather than trying to tear down statues and monuments.      Jeff.      Q    Thanks, Kayleigh.  One follow-up on the Russia and then on another issue.  Does the President have a specific message for Moscow, given these reports?      MS. MCENANY:  A specific message for Moscow?  No, because he has not been briefed on the matter.  As I noted, there's no consensus among the intelligence community and there are, in fact, dissenting opinions.      Q    All right.  And on a separate issue: Jacksonville, Florida, today apparently is issuing a mask order.  That, of course, is where the -- at least part of the RNC will be held later this summer.  Has the President's thinking about wearing a mask changed at all given that order and given the increased coronavirus cases in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere?      MS. MCENANY:  So I talked to the President before coming out here.  He -- it's his choice to wear a mask.  It's the personal choice of any individual as to whether to wear a mask or not.  He encourages people to make whatever decision is best for their safety, but he did say to me he has no problem with masks and to do whatever your local jurisdiction requests of you.      Yes.      Q    Thanks, Kayleigh.  There have been reports that some American service members actually were killed as a result of this Russian bounty.  What information do you have on that?      MS. MCENANY:  Look, again, I’m pointing you back to the fact that there's no consensus within the intelligence community.      And I would also note that, for those of you that are always taking the New York Times at their word, they erroneously reported that the President was briefed on this.  He was not briefed on this and neither was the Vice President.      So before buying into, full-fledged, a narrative from the New York Times that falsely stated something about the President, that you would wait for the facts to come out and note once again: There's no consensus in the intel community, and, in fact, there are dissenting opinions from some within it.      MS. MCENANY:  Yes.      Q    So you say that he wasn't briefed.  Does that mean it wasn't in the PDB either?      MS. MCENANY:  He was not personally briefed on the matter.  That is all I can share with you today, is that both the CIA Director, the National Security Advisor, and the Chief of Staff can all confirm neither the President or the Vice President was briefed.      Q    Okay.  And I have a --      MS. MCENANY:  Yes.      Q    I have coronavirus question as well, please.      MS. MCENANY:  Sure.      Q    Secretary Azar said that the “window is closing.”  This is -- cases are on the rise.  This is a very serious time obviously.  The Vice President held -- held a briefing on Friday.  What is the President's message to the American people? And why aren't we seeing him publicly talk to the public, encourage them to do things to stay safe?      MS. MCENANY:  I would note that there was a whole Coronavirus Task Force briefing on Friday where all of these questions that the American public had were addressed.      We’re encouraged to see that fatalities are coming down; that this Sunday, I believe, we had our lowest fatality rate since -- I believe it was March 22nd -- so, late March.  What that signals to us is we're catching people in the communities.  The people who are being infected tend to be those -- as Vice President Pence has noted, half of those testing positive are under the age of 35.  This means we're catching people in their communities.      We're aware that there are embers that need to be put out, but these signs of decreasing fatality, increased and enhanced therapeutics that we've identified -- four of them: dexamethasone, convalescent plasma, and remdesivir, and one other -- that they are working.  Remdesivir, in particular, reduces hospital time by a third.  So these things make us uniquely equipped to handle the increasing cases that we've seen.      Yes.  Brian.      Q    Kayleigh, there's a national conversation going on right now about the proper place of symbols of the Confederacy -- statues, memorials, names -- and that the President tends to repeatedly insert himself into this debate.  And I think a lot of people are trying to understand what his view of memorializing the Confederacy is and the proper place for the Confederate flag.      So, a couple of questions: One, does he believe -- does President Trump believe that it was a good thing that the South lost the Civil War?  And then, two, is he interested in following NASCAR's example -- of him banning the Confederate flag at his own events?      MS. MCENANY:  Well, your first question is absolutely absurd.  He's proud of the United States of America.      Second, with regard to our statues, Americans oppose tearing down our statues.  There is a Harvard/Harris poll released just last week that shows 60 percent of respondents said the statue should remain, and 71 percent said local governments should block groups from physically destroying the statues.  So he stands on the side of preserving our history.      Q    The question is actually about the Confederate flag at his rallies.  Will he -- is he interested in banning the Confederate flag at his rallies?      MS. MCENANY:  That would be a question for his campaign.  But look, this President is focused on taking action, on fixing problems.  It's why he had his executive order, just a few weeks ago, to keep our streets safe and secure.  That's where his focus lies.      And I think that those who are tearing down statues, they do appear to have no ideology when there's tearing down statues and defacing statues of Matthias Baldwin, an abolitionist; Hans Christian Heg, who died fighting for the Union Army during the Civil War.  A memorial for African American soldiers who fought in the Civil War was damaged in Boston, and a monument to fallen police officers was vandalized in Sacramento.      This is unacceptable.  It's why the President took strong action.  It's why there's an executive order saying: Those tearing down statues will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  It's why four people will be charged.      He will not stand for lawlessness and chaos; he stands with the 71 percent of Americans who say there is no place for tearing down statues, as these anarchists are doing across the nation.      Christian.      Q    (Inaudible) the White House think that it’s okay to display --      MS. MCENANY:  Christian.      Q    -- the Confederate flag at his events?      MS. MCENANY:  Christian.      Q    Yeah, thanks, Kayleigh.  I got a couple.  First off, the President has been talking about this big infrastructure push.  I'm curious if we're ever going to get a look at the proposal that DOT has been working on.      And then, secondly, I'm curious if you could give us a little info on how the phase four negotiations are going.  Do you get a sense that Congress is open to the "back-to-work bonus" that the President said he's in favor of?      MS. MCENANY:  I don't have any updates for you on phase four or infrastructure, but the President has mentioned, for the last three years, he's very keen on Democrats coming to the table and working with us on infrastructure.  He's keen on, in a phase four, seeing a payroll tax holiday, which helps low-wage workers and those who need it most.  These are real, effective measures that could help the American people, but the onus is really on Democrats to come to the negotiating table.      Q    Well, is there any indication that this is going be different than infrastructure in February?  I mean, that was roundly denounced by all the Democrats.      MS. MCENANY:  Yeah, I won't get ahead of the President or those negotiations.      Stephen.      Q    Thank you.  I have two questions.  First about the statues.  I covered pretty closely the Trump inauguration rioting trials, and those all ended in, essentially, jury nullification, and no one was convicted.  And I was wondering if President Trump is concerned about the possibility that the same will happen with the people who were charged -- the four -- trying to topple the Jackson statue, particularly given his personal role helping to apprehend suspects.      MS. MCENANY:  Look, that'll be a decision for the courts to make and for juries to make.  But the President is very keen on seeing these actions brought to justice, because tearing down American monuments, and defacing federal property, and defacing the Lincoln Memorial are not things the American public want to see, as noted with that 71 percent poll.      Q    Got it.  And my second question is: Over the weekend, President Trump retweeted a contrast of his presidency and President Obama's, and there was a chart of the different things that President Obama did and President Trump did.  And one of the differences was President Obama approving the extrajudicial killings of Americans overseas.  There was a little bit of confusion earlier in President Trump's presidency about his position on that.  Are you able to clarify whether he opposes that?      MS. MCENANY:  Look, I would just say this: The President will always point to the difference between his record and that of President Obama, which is what he was getting at with his tweet.  You had, on the one hand, the Obama-Biden presidency, the weakest economic recovery since World War Two.  With President Trump, we got to the hottest economy in modern history.  With President Trump, you saw ISIS defeated.  With Vice President Biden and President Obama, the so-called JV team of ISIS became the varsity team and overran two separate countries.      So the President will always draw a contrast with President Obama, and those are just two of the many, and he was drawing a contrast in that tweet.      Blake.      Q    Thanks, Kayleigh.  I have two questions on COVID-19.  First off, remdesivir, we found out today the pricing of it, going forward: For roughly a five-day trial, $2,300 for government-backed programs; $3,100 in the commercial marketplace.  Does the White House, does President Trump approve of that pricing -- of that price point, considering there’s been some criticism as to whether or not that's too high?      MS. MCENANY:  So, Blake, that’s a really good, important, and substantive question that I think deserves a good answer to.      And, first, the wholesale acquisition costs or the Federal Supply Schedule is about $3,200 for a course of remdesivir.  But remdesivir is an inpatient drug done by infusion.  And because it is an inpatient drug, the patient would be very unlikely to see the cost of the drug and to pay the cost of the drug, because the way that hospitals get reimbursed for inpatient drugs is that they are paid flat fees for admission.      And as Secretary Azar explained to me, this means, in layman terms, that hospitals have to eat the cost of treatment use.  But if they buy remdesivir for, let's say, $3,200, which is the wholesale acquisition cost, and that remdesivir drug saves that patient time in the hospital -- they only spend a third of the time in the hospital as a patient without remdesivir -- that would mean that the hospitals are actually profiting because they're getting the patient out early.  So that basically all comes down to saying that the patient will not see that cost.      Q    So, no issue with the price point.      MS. MCENANY:  Right.      Q    And then, second- --      Q    Kayleigh --      Q    And then, secondly, just picking up where -- what Jeff had asked about masks: You said the President had no problem with masks and that individuals should do whatever their local jurisdiction requests.  However, the HHS Secretary, Alex Azar, said this weekend, quote, “We've got to practice social distancing.  We've got to use face coverings when we can't practice social distancing.”      So if individuals are going into an area, and social distancing cannot be practiced, should they listen to the local jurisdiction in which face masks might not necessarily be mandated, or should they listen to the HHS Secretary who says wear a face mask?      MS. MCENANY:  So the CDC guidelines are: They are recommended but not required.  And we've -- the President would encourage everyone to follow the orders of their local jurisdiction and CDC guidelines.      Todd.      Q    Thank you.  So one Russia follow-up and then a separate issue.  I just want to be clear: There are congressional leaders who are being briefed on the Russia situation, but the President has still not been briefed on the situation?      MS. MCENANY:  Look, this has been asked and answered.  The President is briefed on verified intelligence.      Q    And how does he know -- if he hasn’t been briefed, how is he certain that Russia didn't put out these bounties?      MS. MCENANY:  The President is briefed on verified intelligence.  And again, I would just point you back to the absolutely irresponsible decision of the New York Times to falsely report that he was briefed on something that he, in fact, was not briefed on.      And I really think that it's time for the New York Times to step back and ask themselves why they've been wrong -- so wrong, so often.      The New York Times falsely claimed Paul Manafort asked for polling data to be passed along to Oleg -- Oleg Deripaska before having to issue a correction.      In June of 2017, the New York Times falsely wrote all 17 intel agencies had agreed on Russian interference, before having to issue a correction that it was only four agencies.      In 2017, February of that year, the New York Times published a story claiming Trump campaign aides had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence -- which even James Comey had said was almost entirely wrong, New York Times.      New York Times published a column in March of 2019 by a former Times executive editor that asserted the Trump campaign and Russia “had an overarcing [sic] deal” that the “quid of help in the campaign against Hillary…for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.”  That's what we call the “Russia hoax,” which was investigated for three years with taxpayer dollars before ultimately getting an exoneration in the Mueller report.      It is inexcusable, the failed Russia reporting of the New York Times.  And I think it's time that the New York Times, and also the Washington Post, hand back their Pulitzers.                                         END          1:47 P.M. EDT

Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2020 Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau   Today’s decision represents an important victory for the fundamental principle that government officials should be accountable to the American people.  The Constitution vests the power of the executive branch solely in the President without any limitation on his ability to remove leaders of executive agencies.  As Alexander Hamilton so eloquently argued in Federalist 70, unity in the executive branch is essential for providing the President with the authority needed for the effective administration of government and to make the President fully accountable to the electorate every four years for the management of the executive branch, which inherently includes the appointment and removal of government officials. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), established by the Dodd-Frank Act, was instead designed based on a distrust of the American people’s ability to participate in their government.  The CFPB is exempt from the congressional appropriations process, because CFPB’s creators did not trust democratically-elected representatives with funding the agency.  Similarly, the CFPB’s single director was insulated from removal by the President, because the CFPB’s creators did not trust Presidential elections.  In practice, the CFPB was designed to prevent the American people, to the maximum extent possible, from exercising oversight over CFPB’s sole director, who was granted vast authority over the financial lives of every American.  While the President has full confidence in the current director of the CFPB and believes that she has fully upheld her statutory duties, the President also believes that no official should hold such immense powers without, at least, being directly accountable to a democratically-elected President regardless of party affiliation. Accordingly, today’s decision helps restore to Americans power over their government that the Dodd-Frank Act took away to protect entrenched and unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It respects and preserves the role of American voters in our constitutional system and should stand as an important precedent for ensuring that our Republic remains a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on Abortion

Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2020 Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on Abortion   In an unfortunate ruling today, the Supreme Court devalued both the health of mothers and the lives of unborn children by gutting Louisiana’s policy that required all abortion procedures be performed by individuals with admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.  States have legitimate interests in regulating any medical procedure—including abortions—to protect patient safety.  Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected Justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of State governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations.

West Wing Reads President Trump Is Reversing Credential Inflation in the Federal Workforce

President Trump Is Reversing Credential Inflation in the Federal Workforce “On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to fill job vacancies based on merit, rather than require a minimum level of education for candidates seeking open positions,” Preston Cooper reports for Forbes. “Credential inflation shuts out experienced, qualified job candidates who are perfectly capable of filling certain roles simply because they lack the right piece of paper . . . Most perniciously, it convinces young jobseekers that they need a bachelor’s degree or even a graduate degree to succeed.” Click here to read more. Last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection rescued 4,900 people. “For an agency that faces calls to ‘defund CBP’ and whose personnel are labeled murderers and white supremacists, the lack of attention to the rescues is a source of deep frustration, said Mark Morgan, acting head of CBP,” Stephen Dinan writes in The Washington Times. “It is incumbent upon elected leaders, at every level, to tackle [the tension between law enforcement and the Black community] head on by having an open, honest conversation about how we can move forward together. I’ve appreciated President Trump’s willingness to do just that,” Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron writes in Black Press USA. “Four men have been charged in connection with damage to a statue of President Andrew Jackson during protests near the White House, the U.S. Justice Department said on Saturday,” Diane Bartz reports in Reuters. “‘These charges should serve as a warning to those who choose to desecrate the statues and monuments that adorn our nation’s capital,’ said Acting U.S. Attorney Michael R. Sherwin.” Read more in Reuters.