On Thursday afternoon, President-elect Donald Trump dropped a bombshell on the defense industry: He asked Boeing to price out an alternative to Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets, a hugely valuable contract that Trump has criticized as too expensive. Lockheed's share price plunged almost 2 percent in after-hours trading.

 It was the culmination of weeks of interference by the president-elect in the arcane, bureaucratic function of federal procurement. In early December, it was Boeing on the receiving end of Trump's wrath, when he tweeted that the costs of the new Air Force One planes are “out of control” and told reporters, “Boeing is doing a little bit of a number.” A few days later, he criticized the cost of the F-35 contract. And earlier this week, he convened top military officials and the CEOs of Boeing and Lockheed at his Mar-a-Lago estate to discuss how to bring costs down. Trump told reporters afterward, "We’re just beginning, it’s a dance.”

 More than any other president, Trump appears to want to take a direct role in federal contracting, a technical, complex part of the government that is run by tens of thousands of career civil servants. It is normally a stodgy, rule-bound job, governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation book, which has more than 50 parts and is nearly 2,000 pages long. Mastering the rules and norms takes years, if not decades, and rarely receives much, if any, attention from the upper echelons of government.

 At first glance, Trump would appear to face significant obstacles in using federal contracts as a form of leverage. But conversations with nearly a dozen contracting experts, many who previously worked on procurement issues for the government, suggest that Trump could easily blow through them — and despite the complex bureaucracy, there would likely be few brakes on his use of the process to score political points, reward his friends and punish his enemies. If he does, it could have another effect as well: driving up prices for federal government purchasing overall.

 Unlike traditional contracts, most federal contracts include a “get-out-of-jail” free clause that allows the government to break a contract for a wide variety of reasons. That power is not unlimited, but for companies to prove the government illegally violated the contract, they must prove that the contracting officer acted in “bad faith,” a standard that is exceptionally hard to meet. In one case, a judge held that the company needed “well-nigh irrefragable” — meaning indisputable — “proof” to meet that standard.

 “That language really sent a message to how high the standard was,” said Sandy Hoe, a lawyer at Covington & Burling who has spent more than 40 years practicing government contracts law. “[The courts] have gone away from that but it is still a very, very high standard.”

 It’s hard to know how far Trump could push this power; experts have never considered that a president could effectively use the clause as a weapon against individual companies to further his own political and policy agendas. But Trump has shattered norm after norm and rule after rule on his way to the presidency.

 “Theoretically, it could be done,” David Drabkin, a former top procurement executive at the General Services Administration, said about Trump going after a specific company's federal contracts. “But I can’t imagine it would ever come to that, because it would be a complete violation of both our rules and the culture of how we buy things. He could certainly threaten it. He’s already done it and it worked a little.”

 That the president would use the federal procurement process broadly to advance a certain agenda is actually not uncommon. President Barack Obama has issued numerous executive orders requiring contractors to adhere to certain policies, such as not discriminating against LGBT employees, raising their minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour and offering paid sick leave. Previous presidents have used those powers as well. And these can have a significant effect on the economy, as the government spent $440 billion on procurement contracts in fiscal 2015. But these were blanket policies, applying to all contractors across the federal government.

 What Trump is doing, by targeting specific companies or specific federal contracts, is new and unprecedented, experts said. “Never seen anything like this,” said Sean O’Keefe, a former secretary of the Navy and comptroller of the Defense Department.

 The most famous example of the federal government canceling a contract came in 1991, when then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney terminated a $4.8 billion contact with General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas to design and build the Navy’s A-12 stealth attack plane. At the time, the aircraft was 18 months behind schedule, around $1 billion over budget and 8,000 pounds overweight. It was the largest weapons-program termination in history and set off a 23-year legal battle between the companies and the federal government.

 The lengthy legal battle occurred because the Navy terminated the contract “for default,” a legal standard meaning that the contractor failed to fulfill its contractual duties. Terminating a contract for default is rare and carries significant financial repercussions for the contractor, which does not get compensated for any uncompleted work.

 “That means you failed to perform, show’s over and we’re going to stop sending you money,” said O’Keefe, who was involved in the A-12 case. “We don’t owe you another dime. Contract closed.”

 While the stakes are high for both the government and contractor in termination for default cases, the government can also terminate contracts “for convenience.” Under such scenarios, the government ends a contract because it deems it no longer in the best interest of the country. It’s a unique power, rarely found in the private sector, that effectively allows the government to get out of contracts. The rationale is that the government’s needs change all the time, sometimes abruptly, such as when a war ends, so it needs the flexibility to adjust or cancel contracts.

 Unlike termination for default, termination for convenience allows the contractor to recoup the costs of all its work done up to the point of termination. The government may also pay settlement fees and even sometimes pays the contractor a profit. Still, the termination can be complicated and the contractor loses future revenue. If the contractor believes the contracting officer was acting in bad faith when they cancelled the contract for convenience, they can file a lawsuit against the government. But those cases are rare and extremely difficult to prove.

 For Trump to use the contracting process to punish a company, experts said he likely would terminate a contract for convenience. This, too, would involve a disruption in the bureaucracy: While the president is the ultimate contracting officer in the federal government, an implied authority given to him in the Constitution, he delegates that authority throughout the government, down to low-level contracting officers. Technically, contracting officers are independent of their superiors, including the president; courts have held that officers must make an independent determination that terminating a contract is in the best interest of the country, said Steve Schooner, co-director of The George Washington University’s Government Procurement Law Program and a former top procurement official at the Office of Management and Budget. So Trump cannot simply force an officer to terminate a contract.

 But political appointees are traditionally loyal to the president and civil servants would risk their career if they were to not fall in line. That means, in practice, contracting officers are likely to acquiesce. “They can choose to say, 'I refuse to do that,'” said O’Keefe, “and then obviously they find themselves counting barrels of fuel in Beirut or something after it’s over.”

 How far does Trump’s authority stretch before his actions would constitute acting in bad faith, meaning a contractor could sue the government and collect damages? To find out, I posed a hypothetical scenario to a number of contracting experts: A company angers Trump by moving 1,000 jobs overseas and, in response, Trump tweets that the government will terminate a company’s contract. A few days or weeks later, a contracting officer exercises the “convenience” clause and terminates a valuable contract with the company.

 Is that bad faith? Experts said it would depend on specific facts in the case and the contract itself. But none said that that would certainly constitute bad faith. In fact, many said the government would likely still be favored to win the case.

 “I couldn’t predict a clear-cut outcome at this point,” said Hoe, who said he would expect the administration to “cloak it in language that sounded like it was advancing the country’s interests and economic policies, so it wouldn’t appear to be a vindictive shot at a particular company.” He explained that a court could even hold that Trump acted in good faith because his actions were premised on saving U.S. jobs — so even if the termination of the contract had nothing to do with the contract itself, it might be legal. “It would be a fascinating case,” he added.

 “Let’s say he said publicly, ‘Boeing is criticizing my trade policy, so I am going to bring their prices down.’ That’s the most extreme version,” said Steven Kelman, who headed the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the 1990s and now is a professor of public management at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “My quick reaction is that that’s not illegal.”

 More broadly, experts suggested that it would be unlikely that Boeing or other companies would sue the federal government for acting in bad faith, even if they had a good chance of winning the case. Such a move might jeopardize their other federal contracts, especially if the courts ruled against them.

 "If I’m counseling Boeing, Air Force One is important to me, but am I going to fall on my sword? Come on,” said a lawyer who has done extensive work with government contracts and does not count Boeing as a client. “Boeing’s not going to challenge them on that. If you shoot at the king, you better kill him.”

 Asked whether there are any concerns at Boeing about Trump using the contracting process to gain leverage over companies and what legal safeguards existed to protect contractors, a Boeing spokesperson said, “They set the requirements for our various programs and we work with them to execute on that,” but declined to discuss how much authority Trump has over the federal contracting process.

 It’s tough to predict how Trump will use these powers once in office, and his transition team did not respond to a request for comment. He’s spoken frequently about punishing companies that move jobs overseas, including threatening them with tariffs, although experts are unsure if he has the legal authority to do so. If he wants to both punish companies that outsource while adhering to traditional norms and rules around contracting, Trump could issue an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from moving jobs overseas. It likely would only apply to future contracts, and might be hard to enforce.

 If Trump involves himself in the federal contracting process purely to reduce costs, as seems the case with his attacks on the defense contractors, experts said he'll have more leeway to cancel the contracts without violating the law, although his exact legal powers will differ depending on the specific contract. "Participating in negotiations with Boeing or Lockheed Martin, I would call it highly unorthodox but there’s definitely nothing illegal," said Kelman. The F-35 program does contain clauses to terminate for default or convenience, said Drabkin, so the president could terminate it. However, that program is years in the making and the Chinese and Russians are developing their own variants of the F-35 jet. Any major delays or changes to the program will therefore draw significant interest, and possibly pushback, from Congress as well.

 Still, just the possibility that Trump could use the contracting process in such a manner could have significant implications across the government and economy, creating new uncertainty for both companies and contracting officers. Whether Trump actually follows through on threats to interfere with the contracting process, those threats, often delivered through a tweet, can have an immediate impact on a company’s share price.

 Even when Trump doesn't make an explicit threat, just his willingness to involve himself in individual contracts can influence a company's decision-making. In Trump's deal with Carrier Corp. to save about 700 jobs, Carrier executives said that the potential loss of federal business for Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, influenced their decision-making. (United Technologies currently has about $7 billion in federal contracts.)

 The ultimate result of Trump threatening to terminate federal contracts, whether to prevent companies from moving overseas or to cut down on perceived waste, could be higher costs for the government. Companies, faced with the increased risk of termination or negative publicity from an angry tweet from the president, would likely raise their prices in response, experts said. “With long-term complicated programs, the things that drive up prices are instability and uncertainty,” Schooner said. “That’s what he just added to the process.”

 The president’s involvement in federal procurement is also likely to also slow the process. Contracting officers will negotiate and implement deals even more carefully, Schooner said, worried that the president could send out an early-morning tweet criticizing their work. All of that drives up costs for the federal government and delays much-needed acquisitions.

 “He will scare the bejesus out of some fifth-level auditor who is going to say ‘Goodness gracious, maybe I ought to look at whoever he is attacking at the moment,’” said retired Adm. Dave Oliver, who was a top acquisition official in the Defense Department in the 1990s. “Am I going to believe the Lockheed Martin comptroller who is telling me this is OK, or am I going to believe the president?

 “Whether the president has any legal standing of any kind in this doesn’t matter. That’s what the bully pulpit is all about,” he said. “He is going to be heard and he is going to have an impact.” ||||| HONOLULU/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump heaped pressure on Lockheed Martin Corp on Thursday, saying he viewed costs for the aerospace company’s F-35 fighter as too high and had asked Boeing Co to offer a price for an older aircraft that lacks the same stealth capabilities.

 U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn looks at U.S. President-elect Donald Trump as he talks with the media at Mar-a-Lago estate where Trump attends meetings, in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 21, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 Trump posted his Twitter message a day after the president-elect met with the chief executives of both aerospace companies, using the bully pulpit to press them on projects he says are too expensive.

 In after-hours trading following Trump’s tweet, Lockheed shares fell 2 percent and Boeing’s rose 0.7 percent.

 “Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” Trump said.

 Lockheed declined to comment. The F-35 program is a critical sales generator for the company, accounting for 20 percent of last year’s revenue of $46.1 billion.

 The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said in an email that the company was committed to providing the capability and affordability to meet national security needs.

 While the F-35 program has been dogged by problems and costs have escalated to an estimated $379 billion, it is significantly newer than the F-18, which does not have the same stealth capabilities.

 “They’re two completely different aircraft from different generations,” said Phillip Carter, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “It’s like comparing an old jeep to a Humvee.”

 Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit that investigates government contractors, said the F-35’s stealth capabilities drove the cost up, but its usefulness had not yet been demonstrated. He said canceling the program, however, would be “disruptive.”

 On the campaign trail, Trump touted his negotiating skills as a businessman, and he appears to be using similar tactics as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20. It was not clear how his blunt style would translate to Pentagon procurement or international diplomacy.

 On Wednesday, Trump met the CEOs of Lockheed and Boeing at his resort in Palm Beach, Florida. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg told reporters there that he had guaranteed costs would not get out of control for a replacement to Air Force One, the presidential plane, another project Trump calls too expensive.

 Lockheed Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson did not speak to reporters but said in a statement that the meeting was “productive.” Trump told reporters he wanted to cut the F-35 program’s costs.

 If he scrapped the F-35, such a move by a new administration would have some precedent. Then-President Jimmy Carter canceled the B-1 bomber program in June 1977, although it was resurrected by his White House successor, Ronald Reagan.

 Trump’s jockeying for leverage via his Twitter account is likely to be a hurdle for all U.S. defense contractors in the next administration, Roman Schweizer, aerospace and defense analyst at financial services firm Cowen & Co, wrote in a note to clients on Thursday.

 “We have no idea how this plays out but believe ‘Twitter risk’ for defense companies could be a significant issue over the next four years,” Schweizer wrote. “This is Lockheed Martin’s time in the barrel.” ||||| President-elect Donald Trump, second from left, shows out admirals and generals from the pentagon, foreground after a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew... (Associated Press)

 President-elect Donald Trump, second from left, shows out admirals and generals from the pentagon, foreground after a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla., Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) (Associated Press)

 WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has re-opened the debate over nuclear proliferation, calling for the United States to "greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability" until the rest of the world "comes to its senses" regarding nuclear weapons.

 His comments Thursday on Twitter came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin said strengthening his country's nuclear capabilities should be a chief military objective in the coming year. The president-elect's statement also followed his meetings a day earlier with top Pentagon officials and defense contractors.

 Trump did not expand on the actions he wants the U.S. to take or say why he raised the issue Thursday.

 Spokesman Jason Miller said the president-elect was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation "particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes." Miller said Trump sees modernizing the nation's deterrent capability "as a vital way to pursue peace through strength."

 If Trump were to seek an expansion of the nuclear stockpiles, it would mark a sharp shift in U.S. national security policy. President Barack Obama has made nuclear nonproliferation a centerpiece of his agenda, calling in 2009 for the U.S. to lead efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons — a goal he acknowledged would not be accomplished quickly or easily.

 Still, the U.S. has been moving forward on plans to upgrade its aging nuclear arsenal. Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the Pentagon planned to spend $108 billion over the next five years to sustain and improve its nuclear force.

 The U.S. and Russia hold the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons. In 2010, the two countries signed the New START treaty capping the number of nuclear warheads and missile launchers each country can possess. The agreement is in effect until 2021 and can be extended for another five years.

 The state of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was rarely addressed during the presidential campaign. Trump's vanquished Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, repeatedly cast the Republican as too erratic and unpredictable to have control of the nation's nuclear arsenal.

 The president-elect's transition website says he "recognizes the uniquely catastrophic threats posed by nuclear weapons and cyberattacks," adding that he will modernize the nuclear arsenal "to ensure it continues to be an effective deterrent."

 Trump has spent the week at Mar-a-Lago, his South Florida estate, meeting advisers and interviewing candidates for a handful of Cabinet positions that remain unfilled. On Wednesday, he met with Pentagon officials and the CEOs of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, companies with lucrative government contracts.

 Since winning the election, Trump has complained about the cost of Boeing's work on two new Air Force One planes and Lockheed's contract for F-35 fighter jets. Following the meetings, both CEOs said they had discussed lowering costs of the projects with the president-elect.

 On Thursday, Trump pitted the two companies against each other on Twitter. "Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!" he tweeted.

 Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said Thursday, "We have committed to working with the president-elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability and affordability." Lockheed declined to comment.

 Trump's tweet came after the close of trading on Wall Street. But in after-hours dealings, shares of Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp. fell 2 percent, while Chicago-based Boeing Co.'s stock rose 1 percent.

 Boeing and Lockheed are also among the companies pursuing a contract for replacing Minuteman missiles in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Spokespeople for the two companies declined to comment on whether that contract came up during Trump's meetings with their CEOs.

 The president-elect was also building up his White House staff, announcing Thursday that campaign manager Kellyanne Conway would serve as a counselor. The move will put Conway in close proximity to the president, though she is also expected to remain a visible presence promoting Trump's agenda in the media.

 Trump also announced veteran Republican operatives Sean Spicer as his press secretary and Jason Miller as communications director. Hope Hicks, Trump's long-serving campaign spokeswoman, is also joining the White House in a senior communications position.

 ___

 Associated Press writers Lynn Berry and Joan Lowy in Washington and Jonathan Lemire in Palm Beach, Florida, contributed to this report.

 ___

 Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC ||||| An F-35B from Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 (VMFAT-501), flies near its base a MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. Lockheed Martin

 WASHINGTON — In response to a series of cost overruns and other development issues for the F-35 fighter jet, President-elect Donald Trump said on Thursday he has asked Boeing to "price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet."

 Trump's request — announced via tweet— came a day after meeting separately with the CEOs from Lockheed Martin and Boeing to discuss bringing the "costs down" on the F-35 fifth-generation stealth jet and the next fleet of presidential aircraft.

 Boeing's response — also announced via tweet— said it accepted the invitation to work with the Trump administration to "affordably meet US military requirements."

 On December 12, Trump said the cost for Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation stealth F-35 Lightning II jet was "out of control." The message sent Lockheed Martin's stock down from $251 at the opening bell to $245.50, before it rebounded to a little more than $253 a share. Similarly on Thursday, shares of Lockheed Martin fell 2.0% to $247.75 after hours, while Boeing shares rose 0.7% to $158.52.

 Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson arrives for a meeting with US President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, December 21, 2016. Carlos Barria/Reuters "We're trying to get costs down ... primarily the F-35, we're trying to get the cost down. It's a program that is very, very expensive," Trump said on Wednesday after meeting with Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. Trump said the negotiations with Lockheed Martin were "just beginning" and described it as "a little bit of a dance."

 "I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we've made in bringing the costs down," Hewson said in a statement. "The F-35 is a critical program to our national security, and I conveyed our continued commitment to delivering an affordable aircraft to our US military and our allies."

 Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, valued at an acquisition cost of $379 billion, has become one of the most challenged programs in the history of the Department of Defense. It has experienced setbacks that include faulty ejection seats, software delays, and helmet-display issues.

 US Air Force F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter crew chief, Tech. Sgt. Brian West, watches his aircraft approach for the first time at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., July 14, 2011. US Air Force Photo "The problems on this program quite frankly in the past were very simple. We were overly optimistic in the technical risk in building this leading edge fighter and so we put unrealistic schedules and budgets together and then when we ran into problems we did not manage them very well," Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, said during a briefing with reporters on Monday.

 "I think that this program is vital for air dominance for us and our allies for the next 5o years. It replaces many, many, many legacy fleets, it has tremendous international participation and involvement, and it is a necessary program for the United States to maintain its security," Bogdan added.

 We spent a day with the people who fly and fix the F-35 — here's what they have to say about the most expensive weapons project in history »

 The suggested Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a generation behind the F-35, lacking the coveted capabilities such as stealth and sensor fusion.

 In short, Boeing's Super Hornet would need to be significantly redesigned, manufactured, and tested over multiple years in order to meet the same requirements as the F-35.

 A little bit of background on America's fifth-generation jet

 Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II production facility in Fort Worth, Texas. Courtesy of Lockheed Martin

 Manufactured by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, the fifth-generation "jack of all trades" aircraft was developed in 2001 to replace the aging Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy fleet.

 Designed to accommodate the unique needs of each sister-service branch, the F-35 comes in three variants: the F-35A for the Air Force, F-35B for the amphibious Marine Corps, and F-35C for the Navy.

 All of the fighters are equipped with radar-evading stealth, supersonic speed, and "the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history," Jeff Babione, the head of Lockheed Martin's F-35 program, said in a statement.

 We saw where America's most expensive war machine gets a classified feature, but this is all we can tell you about it »

 "I have stealth," US Air Force Maj. Will "D-Rail" Andreotta, commander of the F-35A Lightning II Heritage Flight Team and F-35 pilot, told Business Insider in a recent interview.

 "I've fought against F-16s and I've never gotten into a dogfight yet. You can't fight what you can't see, and if F-16s can't see me then I'm never going to get into a dogfight with them."

 In other words, the F-35 gives pilots the ability to see but not be seen.

 An F-35A performs a test flight on March 28, 2013. Courtesy of Lockheed Martin What's more, unlike any other fielded fighter jet, the F-35 can share what it sees in the battle space with counterparts, which creates a "family of systems."

 "Fifth-generation technology, it's no longer about a platform. It's about a family of systems, and it's about a network, and that's what gives us an asymmetric advantage," Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, said during a Pentagon briefing.

 Elaborating on the advantages, US Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, the director of the F-35 integration office, said the aircraft was "o ne our adversaries should fear."

 "In terms of lethality and survivability, the aircraft is absolutely head and shoulders above our legacy fleet of fighters currently fielded," said Pleus, an F-35A pilot and former command pilot with more than 2,300 flying hours.

 Now for the price tag ...

 A F-35B aircraft approaches a KC-130J Super Hercules aircraft to re-fuel as it flies over the North Sea having taken off from RAF Fairford on July 1, 2016 Matt Cardy/Getty Images

 The US is slated to buy 2,443 F-35s at an acquisition cost of $379 billion.

 Earlier this week, the F-35 Joint Program Office released the finalized price for the most recent production contract for the fifth-generation jet.

 After a little more than 14 months of negotiations between the Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin, the ninth Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP-9) contract for 57 F-35 jets was valued at $6.1 billion.

 The LRIP-9, which is essentially the ninth batch of jets, includes 34 jets for the US and 23 for five international countries.

 The following is a breakdown of the unit price per variant in current year dollars (including aircraft, engine, and fee):

 42 F-35A model aircraft: $102.1 million a jet

 13 F-35B model aircraft: $131.6 million a jet

 2 F-35C model aircraft: $132.2 million a jet |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– He who pays the piper calls the tune, and it looks like the military-industrial complex is going to be dancing to Donald Trump's tune for years to come. Trump shook up the defense industry once again on Thursday when he tweeted about negotiations for fighter jets, pitting Boeing and Lockheed Martin against each other, reports Reuters. "Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!" tweeted Trump, who has been holding meetings with aerospace execs at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Lockheed shares, which went down 4% after an earlier Trump tweet, dived 2% in after-hours trading, while Boeing was up 0.7%. A roundup of coverage: Politico takes a close look at the implications of Trump involving himself so closely in the federal procurement process and turning it into a "$440 billion weapon." Presidents including Obama have used the process to advance their agendas, but experts say it's unprecedented for one to target individual companies and contracts the way Trump is doing—and his approach is likely to create great uncertainty for defense companies. Business Insider looks at the F-35's capabilities—and the $379 billion contract for Lockheed to supply 2,443 of them to the military. Pentagon officials involved with the F-35 says the fifth-generation jet is far ahead of the Boeing plane, meaning it would take years of redesigning and testing for the Super Hornet to have the same capabilities. The AP reports that Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said: "We have committed to working with the president-elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability, and affordability," while Lockheed declined to comment. Bloomberg reports that Trump's action "sidelined decades of policy and practice in how the government spends billions of dollars annually on military hardware." A Teal Group military aircraft analyst tells Bloomberg that Trump's tweet was "bizarre," especially since only the Navy uses the Super Hornet, while the Marines are "completely dependent" on F-35Bs and the Air Force is sticking with the F-35A. "Thus, Trump's tweet is both late to the game and completely irrelevant." Retired Rear Adm. Dave Oliver tells Politico that Trump's attempt to bring the tactics of the New York real estate market to military procurement will probably just drive prices up. "He will scare the bejesus out of some fifth-level auditor who is going to say, 'Goodness gracious, maybe I ought to look at whoever he is attacking at the moment,' says Oliver, who was a top Pentagon acquisition official in the 1990s. "Whether the president has any legal standing of any kind in this doesn't matter. That’s what the bully pulpit is all about. He is going to be heard and he is going to have an impact."


Write a summary based on this article:

House-Senate negotiators rolled out a $1.1 trillion spending bill Monday night — a giant package that fills in the blanks of the December budget agreement and promises to restore some order to government funding over the next year.

 Under pressure from Republicans, the measure keeps a tight rein on new funding for Wall Street regulators and effectively freezes appropriations for President Barack Obama’s health care program at the reduced, post-sequester level.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Obama pushes Congress on 2014 agenda Boehner pushes Obama on job growth

 But the White House retains the flexibility to find the financing it needs to implement the health exchanges and appears satisfied to have avoided the most contentious restrictions proposed by conservatives.

 (Also on POLITICO: What's in the $1.1T government spending bill?)

 Among his other domestic priorities, Obama secured significant new funding he has wanted for pre-kindergarten education initiatives, albeit more through existing programs like Head Start than the new format he envisioned.

 Indeed, the new $8.6 billion funding level for Head Start reflects one of the biggest investments in the bill — an estimated $1 billion, or 13 percent, increase over current funding and $612 million over its initial 2013 enacted appropriation.

 At the same time, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) came away with two coal-related riders, one affecting mountaintop mining regulations and the other challenging new Export-Import Bank guidelines on the financing of coal-fired power plants overseas.

 One legislative provision that all sides embraced would exempt disability pensions for veterans from a cost-of-living cut included in the December budget deal.

 (Also on POLITICO: Senate delays unemployment vote)

 The very evident give-and-take caps more than six weeks of often intense bargaining within the Appropriations Committees and sets the stage for what the leadership hopes will be a rapid series of floor votes sending the bill on to Obama by this weekend.

 “This bill is a compromise, but it reflects Republican priorities and holds the line on spending in many critical areas,” Rogers said.

 His Senate counterpart, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), more colorfully described the deal as an end to “shutdown, slowdown, slam-down politics.” And speaking for the White House, Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell suggested lawmakers get on with it. “The administration urges Congress to move quickly to pass it,” Burwell said.

 To avoid any threat of a shutdown, the House will first take up a short extension of the current stopgap continuing resolution on Tuesday — moving the deadline back three days to Saturday. This should buy sufficient time for the House to act on the larger omnibus bill Wednesday. And Senate Democrats are hoping that there will be sufficient Republican support to avoid major battles over cloture Thursday and Friday.

 (PHOTOS: Who's leaving Congress?)

 This remains a tight time frame, but the rewards are substantial for both parties. And there is a genuine hunger to build on the December budget deal and not risk another government shutdown akin to last October’s.

 (Also on POLITICO: Senate Dems to meet with Obama)

 Already, a long-anticipated farm bill has gone off the tracks since lawmakers returned from the holidays. If the omnibus were to fail as well, it would be a huge black eye for both parties.

 One positive sign came from Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on Appropriations. In anticipation of the filing, he met with his fellow Republicans on the panel. Shelby said later he would support the bill and asked his colleagues to support it as well.

 “I’m on board,” Shelby told POLITICO. “If the House comes with a big vote, we’ll get a big vote, too.”

 “It’s not everything anybody wanted, but we’ve been working hard at it, and it will lead us, hopefully, to regular order.”

 As the former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee — and an ardent opponent of the Dodd-Frank reforms — Shelby left an imprint seen in the tight budgets for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The administration appears to have avoided restrictive riders proposed in the House, but the price is far less money than the president wants. ||||| The massive $1.1 trillion spending bill would fund federal agencies through the rest of the fiscal year. (Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)

 Congressional negotiators unveiled a $1.1 trillion funding bill late Monday that would ease sharp spending cuts known as the sequester while providing fresh cash for new priorities, including President Obama’s push to expand early-childhood education.

 The 1,582-page bill would fully restore cuts to Head Start, partially restore cuts to medical research and job training programs, and finance new programs to combat sexual assault in the military. It would also give all federal workers a 1 percent raise.

 But in a blow to the District, it provides only partial funding to continue constructing buildings for the Department of Homeland Security’s campus in Anacostia.

 The White House and leaders of both parties praised the measure, which would fund federal agencies for the remainder of the fiscal year and end the lingering threat of a government shutdown when the current funding bill expires at midnight Wednesday.

 “The bipartisan appropriations bill represents a positive step forward for the nation and our economy,” White House budget director Sylvia Mathews Burwell said in a statement.

 The spending bill puts flesh on the bones of a bipartisan budget deal struck in December, when Republicans and Democrats agreed to partially repeal the sequester, heading off a roughly $20 billion cut set to hit the Pentagon on Wednesday and restoring funding to domestic agencies, which had already absorbed sequester reductions.

 Despite the increases, the bill would leave agency budgets tens of billions of dollars lower than Obama had requested and congressional Democrats had sought. That represents a victory for congressional Republicans, who, after three years of fevered battles over the budget, have succeeded in rolling back agency appropriations to a level on par with the final years of the George W. Bush administration, before spending skyrocketed in an effort to combat the recession.

 Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said he expects a majority of lawmakers in both parties to support the measure.

 “Everybody can find something to complain about — legitimately so,” Cole said. “But from the Republican standpoint, gosh, this is $164 billion less than Bush’s last discretionary budget, so that’s pretty good progress in cutting spending.”

 Many Democrats agreed.

 “Compared to the sequester, this is obviously a big improvement. But compared to investments we should be making, it falls far short,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee. The measure proves, he said, that “this notion that the federal government is on a spending binge is just nonsense.”

 With the deadline for a government shutdown fast approaching Wednesday night, House and Senate leaders were preparing a temporary bill to keep the government open through Saturday. That would give lawmakers the rest of the week to review the massive new measure, which proposes funding and policy changes that would reach into every corner of the federal government.

 House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) met through the weekend to put the finishing touches on the package. The pair released a joint statement late Monday, along with a photo showing them smiling happily and shaking hands.

 “As with any compromise, not everyone will like everything in this bill,” the statement said. “But in this divided government a critical bill such as this simply cannot reflect the wants of only one party.”

 Given barely a month to complete work on the package, Mikulski and Rogers were able to overcome early partisan disputes over funding for the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s signature legislative achievement, and payments due to the International Monetary Fund, a frequent target of conservatives. To sweeten the package, they agreed to include a provision that would exempt disabled veterans from a modest pension reduction for military retirees enacted last month to help cover the cost of the sequester repeal.

 All told, the bill would provide $1.012 trillion to the Pentagon and other federal agencies. An additional $92 billion would be set aside for overseas operations, including military activity in Afghanistan and assistance for the growing flow of refugees fleeing the war in Syria. The bill also authorizes $6.55 billion for domestic disaster relief.

 The measure authorizes a 1 percent pay increase for civilian federal workers and U.S. military personnel. But in response to several examples of excess spending by federal agencies, the bill would put in place new limits on certain conferences, official travel and employee awards.

 The National Institutes of Health would receive $29.9 billion, $1 billion more than under the sequester but $714 million less than the agency was due to receive last year before the sequester hit last March.

 Carrie Wolinetz, president of United for Medical Research, a consortium of patient, provider and research organizations, said the proposal “won’t adequately reverse the damage done by last year’s budget sequester and ensure the nation’s biomedical research enterprise makes continued progress in lifesaving research and development.”

 Head Start, which had to drop children from its rolls due to the sequester, would get $8.6 billion, fully reversing the cuts. And while Republicans refused to finance Obama’s push for universal pre-kindergarten classes, they granted his request to expand Head Start partnerships that benefit toddlers and infants.

 The Department of Homeland Security would face a reduction in funding of about $336 million, with most of the cuts at the scandal-ridden Transportation Security Administration. In a victory for Republicans who have sought for years to boost the use of private security contractors, the agreement increases funding for private security screeners and caps the TSA’s overall screening personnel at 46,000.

 The agreement is riddled with dozens of controversial policy riders. One would bar funding to enforce a law that requires incandescent light bulbs to meet new efficiency standards.

 The measure would continue a ban on transferring terrorism detainees at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to sites in the United States. It would also withhold additional funding for the government of Afghanistan until the country agrees to a new bilateral security agreement. And the measure would ban foreign aid for Libya until Secretary of State John F. Kerry “confirms Libyan cooperation” with ongoing investigations into the Sept. 11, 2012, attack at the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

 The measure would also provide new congressional backing for Obama’s strategy of continuing aid to Egypt, despite a law that forbids U.S. military aid to governments that have taken power by military coup, as Egypt’s interim military-backed government did in July.

 Several issues regarding gun control are also included in the bill. The legislation restricts the Justice and Homeland Security departments from establishing programs similar to the “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking effort. In response to allegations that the administration has been stockpiling ammunition for use by federal agents, the measure also requires Homeland Security to provide detailed reports on its purchase and use of ammunition.

 The measure also continues a ban on the use of federal funding to perform most abortions, including abortions in the District and for federal prisoners. But Republicans agreed to jettison other contentious proposals, including a ban on new federal regulations for greenhouse gases and the “global gag rule,” which sought to prohibit U.S. funding for organizations that give women information about abortion.

 Anne Gearan contributed to this report. ||||| Lawmakers on Monday night unveiled a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, contained in a 1,582-page document , that leaders plan to bring to a House vote on Wednesday and before the Senate by the weekend.

 The bill covers the entire federal discretionary budget for fiscal 2014 and fleshes out the details of December’s budget agreement between Democrats and Republicans. By passing the bill, Congress would ensure the government stays open until Oct. 1.

 ADVERTISEMENT The two leaders of the appropriations panel on Monday said their bill would ensure there would be no repeat of October's 16-day government shutdown.

 "There will be no shutdown," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who predicted a strong bipartisan vote. "The fact is, this is a strong bipartisan bill; it is a bicameral bill. We feel very good we were able to accomplish this with a lot of give and take, a lot of compromise on both sides."

 Her House counterpart said the bill reflected a compromise between the GOP-led House and Democratic-led Senate, adding that it would also continue a "downward trend" in spending by the government.

 “The bill reflects careful decisions to realign the nation’s funding priorities and target precious tax dollars to important programs where they are needed the most," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said in a release. "At the same time, the legislation will continue the downward trend in federal spending to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path."

 “My committee worked closely with our colleagues in the Senate to find common ground. This bill is a compromise, but it reflects Republican priorities and holds the line on spending in many critical areas,” Rogers said.

 The Obama administration also praised the bill in a statement.

 "Appropriations Chairmen Mikulski and Rogers deserve credit for working together to craft this legislation in a bipartisan and constructive manner. The Administration urges Congress to move quickly to pass it," White House Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell said.

 To please defense hawks, the bill includes $92 billion in war funding for the Pentagon, about $10 billion more than the Senate sought. This should help the military cope with a base budget decrease to $486 billion, a drop of $30 billion from the Senate's draft bill.

 Republican appropriators touted a number of policy riders they were able to get into the bill, including a provision preventing the Export-Import Bank from blocking coal projects and one preventing new restrictions on livestock industry. The bill has no high speed rail funding nor any for the International Monetary Fund or United Nations cultural organization. On ObamaCare, the GOP notes there is no new funding requested by agencies to implement the law and the so-called ObamaCare slush fund is cut by $1 billion to prevent the administration from dipping into it. Appropriators had to contend with 134 policy riders on the omnibus, many of which were opposed by Mikulski. In the end, many remained in the bill, including one preventing the National Labor Relations Board from implementing e-Card Check regulations for unions and language preventing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. But Mikulski emphasized that there was nothing in the omnibus that would hold up Obama's signature healthcare law.

 "There is nothing in the bill that blocks ObamaCare," she said, however. "ObamaCare lives another day."

 She also said there are no "new" abortion riders in the giant bill.

 The bill includes one crucial change to a controversial cut to military pensions that was included in the December budget deal. With the change, disabled veterans and relatives of deceased service members would not see their pensions cut.

 But the omnibus does not completely reverse the $6 billion cut agreed to in December, despite demands by scores of lawmakers. Some senators hope to enact that change as part of a separate unemployment insurance extension.

 To keep the government funded while lawmakers consider the omnibus, the House on Tuesday will vote on a 3-day spending bill that would keep the government operating through Saturday night. The Senate will also have to approve that measure before the end of Wednesday.

 The series of votes this week creates opportunities for disagreements that could lead to a shutdown, particularly given the secretive talks on the bill and the possibility that members of either party will object to spending provisions.

 But neither party seems in the mood to create a huge fight over either the continuing resolution or the omnibus, which is based on spending levels set by a budget deal approved by Congress in December.

 Republicans in particular are keen to avoid another shutdown after their approval numbers plummeted during the October shutdown. The GOP now wants to keep the discussion on ObamaCare’s flawed rollout as much as possible.

 The budget was approved overwhelmingly on a 332-94 vote in the House, and negotiators are hoping to recreate the coalition of centrists that led to passage.

 While majorities in both chambers look likely to back the omnibus, House and Senate conservatives are warning of opposition, and outside Tea Party groups have sought to pressure GOP leaders.

 FreedomWorks, one of the Tea Party groups, unfavorably compared Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday to his predecessor — Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader.

 “What do John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have in common?” it said in a release. “Boehner is trying to ram an omnibus spending bill through Congress before you and I can find out what's in it. That's the same way Pelosi snuck ObamaCare through Congress.”

 It's not clear if Boehner will lose a number of conservatives.

 Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) has said he would oppose any bill that funds the government above $967 billion in annual funding. The budget deal brokered last month sets regular spending at $1.012 trillion with additional money for wars and disasters.

 Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) is open to supporting an omnibus, but says it would have to include conservative priorities.

 Wall Street regulators would receive relatively modest funding hikes under the omnibus. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which faces a significantly expanded workload under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, would receive a 9.3 percent boost, or $20 million, to bring its funding up to $215 million.

 It had warned this fall it could have to furlough employees this fiscal year for up to 14 days to make ends meet.

 The other financial regulator whose budget is set by Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission, received a relatively smaller boost.

 That agency got just a $25 million hike to bring its budget up to $1.35 billion, a 1.8 percent increase.

 The package eliminates $25 million the SEC had kept in a reserve fund congressional critics decried as a “slush fund” free of oversight, and assigns $44 million of the SEC’s budget to its economic analysis branch.

 Republican critics of the agency have long argued it fails to properly weigh the economic impact of new rules, and the regulator has faced legal challenges on that front.

 Significantly in the foreign policy arena, the bill prevents the implementation of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, opposed by gun-rights advocates, and adds new restrictions on aid to Afghanistan and Egypt.

 The bill continues a ban on the troubled Postal Service ending Saturday mail delivery.

 — This story was updated at 9:03 a.m. |||||

– After weeks of late nights, House and Senate negotiators believe they have hammered out a bipartisan spending bill that will ensure a year free from government shutdown drama. "There will be no shutdown," says Senate Appropriations Committee chair Barbara Mikulski. "This is a strong bipartisan bill, and it is a bicameral bill." The bill covers discretionary spending throughout fiscal 2014, ensuring the government remains open until at least October 1. The time frame to pass the mammoth $1.1 trillion bill is tight, but both parties are keen to avoid another shutdown, Politico notes. "I'm on board,” says Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee. "It’s not everything anybody wanted, but we’ve been working hard at it, and it will lead us, hopefully, to regular order.” Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, says he expects a majority of lawmakers from both parties to back the measure. "Everybody can find something to complain about—legitimately so," he tells the Washington Post. "But from the Republican standpoint, gosh, this is $164 billion less than Bush’s last discretionary budget, so that’s pretty good progress in cutting spending." The bill eases the sequester spending cuts, providing just upward of $1 trillion to federal agencies and another $92 billion for overseas operations for a total of $1.1 trillion, marking the first time discretionary spending has fallen over four years since the Korean War, according House Appropriations Committee chair Hal Rogers. Federal workers will get a 1% raise under the bill, which provides fresh cash for President Obama's push to expand pre-kindergarten education and contains no language that would block ObamaCare. The measure slashes Homeland Security funding by $336 million, with most of the cuts at the TSA. The measure also contains dozens of policy riders, including a continued ban on transferring Gitmo detainees, prevention of funding for a ban on incandescent light bulbs, and new restrictions on aid to Egypt, the Hill finds.


Anticipating a month of heavy lobbying and television advertising by opponents, led by the pro-Israel group Aipac, the president and members of his team are leaning on Democrats to declare their backing for the agreement before they leave Washington to face their constituents.

 Mr. Obama, who will decamp to Martha’s Vineyard this weekend for his own two-week vacation, will have limited personal contact with wavering lawmakers, but his team has been instructed to make the president and other senior administration officials available to any skeptic with an unanswered question or concern about the deal. “Anyone who wants a phone call will get one,” one official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to outline internal strategy.

 Officials said that Mr. Obama’s address on Wednesday would be followed by a series of news media interviews that would be shown next week. And the administration plans to dispatch cabinet members, including Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, the nuclear physicist who helped negotiate the accord, to travel the country outlining its provisions. Mr. Moniz will appear on Friday at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, officials said.

 “We are confident that a sizable number of members of Congress will put politics aside and focus on what they believe is in the best interest of the United States and our national security, and if they do, a substantial number of those who follow that path will be supportive of the agreement,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary. “There’s no denying that there is intense political pressure on both sides of this agreement,” he continued, adding that officials were hoping that lawmakers would “focus on the specific terms of the agreement.”

 The effort gained some momentum Tuesday as three closely watched Democratic senators — Barbara Boxer of California, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Bill Nelson of Florida — declared their backing, along with a handful of House Democrats. Mr. Obama’s team is working with Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, to build support to potentially sustain a presidential veto of legislation rejecting the accord. ||||| President Obama urged support for the Iran nuclear deal while speaking at American University in Washington. He outlined the deal and denounced critics' claims that the deal would open a pathway for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. VPC

 President Obama listens as United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaks during their meeting in the Oval Office at the White House Tuesday. (Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

 WASHINGTON — President Obama will deliver a crucial speech on the Iran nuclear agreement Wednesday, arguing that the congressional vote that could block the deal is "the most consequential foreign policy debate since the decision to go to war in Iraq," the White House said.

 White House aides said Obama would "point out that the same people who supported war in Iraq are opposing diplomacy with Iran, and that it would be an historic mistake to squander this opportunity" to contain Iran's nuclear program.

 The framing of that message appears to be a direct appeal to congressional Democrats; while some opposed the Iraq War, others came to regret their votes to authorize it. Obama will need their votes to get the one-thirds vote necessary to sustain a veto.

 Since the Iran deal isn't a treaty, it doesn't need congressional approval, but can be rejected with a two-thirds vote of both chambers. On Tuesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee formally introduced a resolution to do just that, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy promised a September vote once the House returns from its summer recess.

 The deal, two years in the making, would relax sanctions against Iran in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Critics, including every major Republican presidential candidate, say Iran cannot be trusted and that the economic benefits of the deal will only strengthen Iran's ability to threaten Israel and foment extremism throughout the Middle East.

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged Obama to "avoid tired, obviously untrue talking points about this being some choice between a bad deal and war."

 "Of course it isn't," McConnell said Wednesday. "He knows it isn't. He himself has said that 'a bad deal is worse than no deal.'"

 Obama made a special appeal to the Jewish community Tuesday, meeting at the White House with about two-dozen leaders of Jewish groups that span the religious and ideological spectrum, including the conservative American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the liberal J Street, and leaders of reform and orthodox congregations.

 The president is trying to counter a determined lobbying campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who continued his months-long effort to scuttle the deal by appealing to American Jews in a webcast Tuesday. "I don’t oppose this deal because I want war,” he told them. "I oppose this deal because I want to prevent war.”

 Wednesday's speech, at American University in Washington, is already drawing historical parallels. It's the same place President Kennedy gave his 1963 speech proposing a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union at the apex of the Cold War.

 The White House seemed to be encouraging those comparisons — to a point. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said both Kennedy and Obama "entered into a diplomatic agreement with an adversary of the United States that did succeed in advancing the national security interests of the United States."

 But unlike Kennedy, Earnest said, Obama did not have to make any concessions about its own defense. "There’s no impact from this nuclear agreement on the United States and either our nuclear programs or our military programs," Earnest said Tuesday.

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1SML4mR ||||| President Obama lashed out at critics of the Iran nuclear deal on Wednesday, saying many of those who backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq now want to reject the Iran accord and put the Middle East on the path toward another war.

 Obama also said that if Congress rejects the deal, it will undermine America’s standing in global diplomacy, leaving the United States isolated and putting Israel in even greater peril.

 While calling the nuclear accord with Iran “the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated,” Obama also seemed to turn the vote on the deal into a referendum on the U.S. invasion of Iraq a dozen years ago, a decision he portrayed as the product of a “mind-set characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy.”

 Obama said that when he first ran for president, he believed “that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to end the mind-set that got us there in the first place.” He added that “now, more than ever, we need clear thinking in our foreign policy.”

 It was the president’s sharpest attack yet on opponents of the Iran nuclear deal, which he sees as a defining achievement amid an often rocky foreign policy record.

 President Obama hammered critics of the nuclear deal negotiated with Iran, saying Republicans in the Congress who oppose it are making “common cause” with Iranian hard-liners. (AP)

 [How the Obama White House runs foreign policy]

 In a two-hour White House meeting Tuesday night with Jewish American groups, Obama seemed particularly bothered by a multimillion-dollar ad campaign aimed at stopping the deal. On Wednesday afternoon, the president used his Twitter account to say: “There’s no such thing as a ‘better deal.’ Walking away risks war.”

 As he nears the end of his tenure, Obama has been arguing forcefully that diplomacy can yield benefits, even as his administration continues to use targeted strikes by drones and struggles to deal with civil war in Syria, the rise of the Islamic State and confrontation with Russia over Ukraine.

 “I have not shied away from using force when necessary,” Obama said, noting he had authorized military actions in seven countries. “. . . I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It’s not even close.”

 Obama spoke from American University, the same venue used by President John F. Kennedy to promote efforts to reach a landmark nuclear test-ban treaty with Moscow at the height of the Cold War. Obama invoked that 1963 speech, saying Kennedy “rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing.”

 Instead, Obama said, Kennedy sought “a practical and attainable peace, a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.”

 But many observers felt that Obama’s speech was more caustic and partisan than Kennedy’s. “Walk away from this agreement and you will get a better deal — for Iran,” he said to critics.

 Here are key moments from President Obama's speech at American University on Aug. 5, addressing the international deal on Iran's nuclear program that Congress is considering. (AP)

 At one point, Obama brushed aside comments by Iranian hard-liners who he said do not reflect what all Iranians believe and are the “most comfortable with the status quo.” The president added: “It’s those hard-liners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

 Later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called on Obama “to retract his bizarre and preposterous comments” and said that Democrats who have already stated their opposition would be “insulted” by them.

 Obama did not shy away from engaging foes of the Iran deal and linking them to the decision to invade Iraq.

 “The single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein,” Obama added. He also noted that when President George W. Bush took office, Iran did not possess any centrifuges, the machines needed to produce nuclear bomb material, while when Obama took office Iran already had installed several thousand.

 Even some supporters of the nuclear deal were put off by Obama’s argument. Many critics of the agreement were proponents of war in Iraq, but that does not make them warmongers, said Robert Einhorn, an arms-control and nonproliferation analyst with the Brookings Institution.

 “I think it will offend more than convert,” said Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Wilson Center and a former Middle East negotiator at the State Department. Miller supports the agreement but said Obama’s speech “paints those who are not reckless critics of this agreement with a large brush.”

 Others who have met directly with Obama said they were impressed by the resolve with which he is making his case. They argue that the president has no choice but to fight against fierce criticism from Republican rivals and some Jewish groups opposed to the deal.

 Obama has been irked by ad campaigns against the deal, including one comparing him to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister leading up to World War II, who has been widely blamed with not standing up to Adolf Hitler.

 Alexandra Stanton, a board member at J Street, a group that supports the deal, said Obama “has a right to combat what he thinks are campaigns against him laden with non-facts and offensive statements. He has a right to call that out, a right to say he’s concerned about it and that he finds it objectionable.”

 Obama appears to have made inroads with some Senate Democrats. On Wednesday, Sens. Chris Murphy (Conn.) and Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, announced their support. On Tuesday, Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Timothy M. Kaine (Va.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) backed the plan.

 But the president has been less successful in wooing opponents among influential Jewish American groups.

 “He feels the arguments that have been deployed against the deal are inaccurate and it’s his job to set the record straight,” said Jason Isaacson, who is the director of government and international affairs at the American Jewish Committee and attended the meeting with Obama.

 Although Isaacson called Obama “a forceful salesman,” the American Jewish Committee announced Wednesday that it would oppose the nuclear deal.

 Republicans also criticized how Obama has framed the debate.

 “Does anybody in America believe that if we turn down this deal, this president is going to engage in war with Iran?” asked Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “That’s one of those straw men that demeans the debate.”

 The heart of Obama’s address sought to hammer home the administration’s views that the alternative to the deal is conflict.

 “I say this not to be provocative,” Obama said. “I am stating a fact. . . . The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”

 [Both sides court every vote in Congress]

 Obama and other top administration officials, including Secretary of State John F. Kerry, have framed the Iran deal as a last chance to roll back Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, in particular, the scope of its ability to enrich uranium. In exchange, international sanctions on Iran would be eased.

 Speaking directly to lawmakers opposing the deal, Obama said rejection would cost more than missing a chance to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

 “We will have lost something more precious,” he said, “America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy, America’s credibility as an anchor of the international system.”

 Obama emphasized that every nation that has weighed in on the deal has backed it — except Israel, which fears for its own security and whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been among the most vocal critics.

 “I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong,” Obama said.

 The West and its allies fear that Iran’s nuclear fuel facilities could one day be expanded to make weapons-grade material. Iran insists it does not seek nuclear arms but demands that it retain the capacity to make its own fuel for peaceful reactors.

 Under the deal reached last month, U.N. inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency would have “unprecedented” access to Iranian nuclear sites, Kerry has told lawmakers. But some critics have questioned provisions that require advance notice — and possible negotiations with Iran — to inspect other areas of possible nuclear-related activity. The procedure could delay inspectors by up to 24 days.

 Obama retorted that once an area of suspicion is identified, it would be watched “continuously” until inspectors can get to it and that they would get in even if Iran objects.

 Obama also addressed complaints that lifting economic pressures on Iran could end up funding Iran’s military and its proxies in the region, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

 “If we are serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal,” he said. “Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities.”

 The Iran pact faces widespread opposition in Congress — even among some Democrats — before the Sept. 17 deadline to vote. If Congress votes for a bill rejecting the deal, Obama has promised to veto it, setting up the key showdown over whether opponents could muster enough votes to secure an override.

 “Shut out the noise,” he urged lawmakers. “Consider the stakes.”

 Brian Murphy, Carol Morello, Karoun Demirjian and Mike DeBonis contributed to this report. ||||| Returning to the theme that launched his first White House bid, President Barack Obama pitched his Iran nuclear deal Wednesday by urging Congress not to repeat its mistake of approving the 2003 Iraq War.

 “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option — another war in the Middle East,” Obama warned.

 Story Continued Below

 In tones that alternated between impassioned, incredulous and mocking of the Iran deal’s critics, Obama offered his strongest — and most political — argument yet for the agreement struck on July 14. Departing from the substance of the deal, Obama spent several minutes focusing on the track record of its opponents.

 “The same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran deal,” Obama told an audience at American University. He said those critics exaggerate threats, obscure the true costs of war, and prefer military action over diplomacy.

 Obama’s target audience: the few dozen undecided House and Senate Democrats who control the fate of the deal in Congress. A day before the first Republican presidential debate, Obama was also speaking to an American public with mixed views on Iran, but which overwhelmingly thinks the Iraq War was a mistake.

 More than at anytime in his presidency, Obama reverted to arguments he made repeatedly early in his first presidential bid. Some former aides said the speech brought back memories of Obama’s insurgent primary campaign in Iowa in late 2007.

 “When I ran for President eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war — we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place,” Obama said.

 Obama argued that opponents of the deal, who insist that it is too weak, are stuck in the mindset of Washington “conventional wisdom” and a cavalier attitude toward the unpredictable consequences of war. He urged members of Congress, who are expected to vote on the deal in September, to “worry less about being labeled weak [and] worry more about getting it right.”

 Unmentioned in Obama’s speech was Hillary Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize force in Iraq, which likely allowed Obama to derail her path to the 2008 Democratic nomination. Nor did he mention identical votes by two other members of his administration who were then in the Senate: Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden. Several other influential Democrats who backed the war remain in Congress, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer.

 Obama did not single out any critics, though his voice rose in frustration when he described opposition to the Iran deal “in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have a compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran and more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decade since.”

 The argument drew a quick and angry rebuke from two prominent Iraq War backers who are also fierce critics of the pact. Obama’s address was “another example of his reliance on endless strawmen to divert attention from his failed policies,” said Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham in a joint statement.

 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker also blasted the speech to POLITICO, calling it “partisan” and misleading.

 The idea that war is the only alternative to the deal is a “straw man,” Corker said. “Our military officials that have sat with the administration all the way through this have said: Never ever has there been any discussion about the fact if this deal falls apart there will be military action. Never.”

 In a statement, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce noted that, in Senate testimony last week, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the U.S. military had “a range of options” for confronting Iran short of war.

 Corker suggested that Obama’s emphasis on the undesirability of bombing Iran — which he said would set back its program only a few years with other dangerous consequences — has undermined America’s leverage.

 “This president is not going to carry out military action against Iran. Iran knows that,” Corker said.

 Obama took care to note that he has ordered military action in seven countries and sent tens of thousands of U.S. troops into battle, nearly all of them in Afghanistan during his first term.

 Obama also infuriated some Republicans by arguing that they had made “common cause” with Iranian hard-liners opposed to the deal who chant “Death to America” at public rallies. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement calling the comment “bizarre” and “offensive,” and said it “goes way over the line of civil discourse.”

 The assault on critics of the Iran deal book-ended a speech that mainly reiterated Obama’s previous arguments on behalf of the agreement, under which Iran will accept limits on its nuclear program for 10 to 15 years, and in some areas longer, in return for an end to economic sanctions.

 Obama repeated his argument that the deal represented the best effort of diplomacy and that a stronger alternative is not plausible.

 “Those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy,” Obama argued, one of several instances where he belittled his critics’ arguments. White House officials say Obama has been frustrated with what he considers unserious critiques of the nuclear pact from Republicans.

 Elsewhere in the speech, for instance, Obama mocked “lobbyists and pundits [who] were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists,” second-guessing credentialed experts like Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz.

 ”I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president. But whether this deal is good for American security is not a tough call. It’s not even close,” Obama said.

 If the deal fails, he argued, “the alternatives to a military option will have been exhausted,” and America will be headed toward “another war in the Middle East” with what he called unpredictable consequences.

 “If we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general — and wars in the Middle East in particular — are anything but simple,” Obama said.

 Congress can vote to disapprove the deal and prevent Obama from suspending tough U.S. sanctions on Iran, which could bring down the entire agreement. Obama would veto such a measure, and Congress would need a two-thirds vote in each chamber to override it.

 Despite a fierce lobbying campaign by opponents of the deal and the government of Israel, the agreement seems likely to survive. But the relentlessness of the administration’s sales pitch — including Obama’s powerful language Wednesday — indicates that the White House is not taking that outcome for granted.

 Obama opened his address by recalling a historic speech 52 years earlier at the same location by President John F. Kennedy, who argued for negotiating with the Soviet Union in the name of world peace. “Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world,” Obama said. “But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing.”

 The speech opened on a lighter note when Obama, who arrived nearly 40 minutes late, explained the reason for his tardiness: “I apologize for the slight delay,” he said with a grin. “Even presidents have problems with toner.”

 Burgess Everett contributed to this report. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– President Obama today began his campaign to convince Congress to back his Iran nuclear deal with a major speech in which he characterized the upcoming vote as one about war or peace. If the deal falls through, opponents can expect a likely outcome, he said at American University: “Another war in the Middle East.” Obama added that “I am not saying this to be provocative,” reports the Washington Post. “I am stating a fact ... the choice we have is some kind of war, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in three months, but soon.” In the speech, Obama also drew a parallel with the vote to authorize the Iraq war. “Many of the same people who made the case for war with Iraq” oppose the Iran deal, he said. They need to “worry less about being labeled weak [and] worry more about getting it right," because that war "did more to strengthen Iran and more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decade since," reports Politico. The Iraq message seems to be aimed at Democrats who voted in favor of the war and now regret it, because Obama will need their votes to sustain any veto, reports USA Today. The speech kicks off "a campaign of private entreaties and public advocacy over the next several weeks" to win approval of the deal, notes the New York Times.


In this Saturday, Aug. 26, 2017, file photo, a man watches a screen showing an image of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, at the Seoul Train Station in Seoul, South Korea. Three North Korea short-range... (Associated Press)

 SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea fired an unidentified projectile from its capital Pyongyang that flew over Japan, officials said, an especially aggressive test-flight that will rattle an already anxious region.

 Seoul's Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday said the South Korean and U.S. militaries were analyzing the launch and didn't immediately confirm how far the projectile traveled. Japanese officials said the missile flew over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and landed in the Pacific Ocean. There was no damage to ships or anything else reported. Japan's NHK TV said the missile separated into three parts.

 The launch comes days after the North fired what was assessed as three short-range ballistic missiles into the sea and a month after its second flight test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, which analysts say could reach deep into the U.S. mainland when perfected.

 North Korea typically reacts with anger to U.S.-South Korean military drills, which are happening now, often staging weapons tests and releasing threats to Seoul and Washington in its state-controlled media. But animosity is higher than usual following threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to unleash "fire and fury" on the North, and Pyongyang's stated plan to consider firing some of its missiles toward Guam.

 Pyongyang regularly argues that the U.S.-South Korean military exercises are an invasion rehearsal. The allies say they are defensive and meant to counter North Korean aggression.

 North Korea's U.N. ambassador, Ja Song Nam, wrote recently that the exercises are "provocative and aggressive" when the Korean peninsula is "like a time bomb." ||||| This will appear next to all of your comments

 This will NOT appear anywhere on Newser |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– North Korea fired an unidentified projectile from its capital Pyongyang that flew over Japan, officials said, an especially aggressive test-flight that will rattle an already anxious region, the AP reports. Seoul's Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday said the South Korean and US militaries were analyzing the launch and the South Korean military said the projectile traveled 1678 miles with a height of 341 miles. Japanese officials said the missile flew over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido and landed in the Pacific Ocean. There was no damage to ships or anything else reported. Japan's NHK TV said the missile separated into three parts. The launch comes days after the North fired what was assessed as three short-range ballistic missiles into the sea and a month after its second flight test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, which analysts say could reach deep into the US mainland when perfected. North Korea typically reacts with anger to US-South Korean military drills, which are happening now, often staging weapons tests and releasing threats to Seoul and Washington in its state-controlled media. But animosity is higher than usual following threats by US President Donald Trump to unleash "fire and fury" on the North, and Pyongyang's stated plan to consider firing some of its missiles toward Guam.


Photo: Travelgame/Getty Images/Lonely Planet Images Image 1 of / 17 Caption Close

 Image 1 of 17 No, this is not the Texas flag. Click through to see what one Houston rapper's own emoji set looks like... No, this is not the Texas flag. Click through to see what one Houston rapper's own emoji set looks like... Photo: Travelgame/Getty Images/Lonely Planet Images

 Image 2 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 3 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 4 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 5 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 6 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 7 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 8 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 9 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 10 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 11 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 12 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 13 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 14 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 15 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame

 Image 16 of 17 Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Houston rapper Trae Tha Truth is immortalized in a set of emojis that reflect him and Houston's hip-hop culture. Photo: Emoji Fame ||||| A Texas House representative from Cypress has introduced a resolution urging Texans to quit using the Chilean flag emoji as a stand-in for the Lone Star.

 HCR 75, filed Thursday, urges "Texans not to use the flag emoji of the Republic of Chile when referring to the Texas flag." ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– The Chilean flag is annoyingly similar to Texas' state flag, but that doesn't mean Lone Star Staters should appropriate Chile's flag emoji when they feel like expressing Texas pride. That's the gist of what one state lawmaker is trying to push through via Texas House Concurrent Resolution 75, which takes it upon itself to "urge" residents not to use the Chilean icon online as a substitute for the non-existent Texas flag emoji, the Houston Chronicle reports. In what the Dallas Morning News says belongs under the "yes, it's a real bill" umbrella, Cypress' conservative Rep. Tom Oliverson filed the resolution, noting, "Just as our flag could never fully embody the country of Chile, neither can the Chilean flag inspire feelings of pride and passion in the heart of a true Texan." He points out that although both flags feature a similar red, white, and blue layout capped by that lone star, which often causes emoji-users to confuse Chile's flag for Texas' flag, Chile's colors are meant to symbolize "sky, snow, and blood spilled while fighting for freedom," while Texas' hues are meant to represent "loyalty, purity, and bravery." He also notes that the blue in his state's flag extends all the way down to the bottom, while Chile's is cut off into a square about halfway down (he even wants to get the #TheBlueGoesAllTheWayDown hashtag to pick up steam). That said, Oliverson concedes this bill isn't "the most pressing issue" the Legislature has on its plate at the moment, per the Morning News. (The White House rejected a Texas secession petition a few years back.)