# data[].attributes.body
Biden stressing for unity to the department of defense https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2500401/president-stresses-unity-in-message-to-defense-department/

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses Jimmy Carter and his acts and proposals.http://jimmycarter.freeservers.com/about.html

# data[].attributes.body
Biden plans to overhaul our healthcare system. https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-biden-s-economic-policies-5071356

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses Biden’s agenda for the environment during his term. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjkta3y25DvAhWEHc0KHaUdBiAQxfQBCDowAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fglobalcompliancenews.com%2Funited-states-president-bidens-environmental-agenda-comes-into-focus-08022021%2F&usg=AOvVaw0cAzSvpgIEXvr9FPyJ6hTI

# data[].attributes.body
Former president trump meets with Korean boi

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about President Bill Clinton, it also talks about some of the bills he sponsored.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.

President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, in Hope, Arkansas, three months after his father died in a traffic accident. When he was four years old, his mother wed Roger Clinton, of Hot Springs, Arkansas. In high school, he took the family name.

He excelled as a student and as a saxophone player and once considered becoming a professional musician. As a delegate to Boys Nation while in high school, he met President John Kennedy in the White House Rose Garden. The encounter led him to enter a life of public service.

Clinton was graduated from Georgetown University and in 1968 won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1973, and entered politics in Arkansas.

He was defeated in his campaign for Congress in Arkansas's Third District in 1974. The next year he married Hillary Rodham, a graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School. In 1980, Chelsea, their only child, was born.

Clinton was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976, and won the governorship in 1978. After losing a bid for a second term, he regained the office four years later, and served until he defeated incumbent George Bush and third party candidate Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential race.

Clinton and his running mate, Tennessee's Senator Albert Gore Jr., then 44, represented a new generation in American political leadership. For the first time in 12 years both the White House and Congress were held by the same party. But that political edge was brief; the Republicans won both houses of Congress in 1994.

In 1998, as a result of issues surrounding personal indiscretions with a young woman White House intern, Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. He apologized to the nation for his actions and continued to have unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president.

In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking. He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom.

The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from "The Presidents of the United States of America," by Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2006 by the White House Historical Association.

For more information about President Clinton, please visit
William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum
Clinton Presidential Materials Project
William J. Clinton Foundation

Learn more about William J. Clinton's spouse, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Previous President | Next President

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term.

# data[].attributes.body
This an article about all the officials that had resigned or were fired during the Trump administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At least 12 senior Trump administration officials have been ousted or have resigned since the President Donald Trump lost his re-election bid.

Trump, who still hasn't conceded the race, has spent the past several days firing off tweets and attacking his staff.

Here are the officials that have left their Trump-appointed positions since November 3.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Alongside disputing the 2020 election results and refusing to concede to President-elect Joe Biden two weeks after losing, President Donald Trump has resumed firing senior officials in rapid succession on Twitter.

In what appears to be a post-election purge of anyone the president deems disloyal, at least 12 people have been sacked or have resigned from the Trump administration since November 3. Most of them worked in national security, and critics worry that the shakeup and any further actions by Trump may pose risks to the federal government during an uncertain transition period.

The president's most recent dismissal was cybersecurity chief Chris Krebs, who'd been responsible for overseeing election security and repeatedly challenged Trump's unfounded claims that the race was stolen from him due to voter fraud. Trump booted the director of DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency via Twitter on Tuesday, which sparked outrage from Democratic lawmakers who applauded Krebs for protecting the election process in a bipartisan way. Republicans, too, frowned at the decision, in a rare pushback against Trump.

Still, Trump's GOP allies have largely avoided commenting on his refusal to admit defeat, even though every network called the race for Biden nearly two weeks ago. Instead, they've pushed for Trump's legal battles to be allowed to play out. So far, the president has won zero out of the nearly two dozen lawsuits filed in an effort to overturn the results. Trump has sent his campaign staff to do the on-the-ground work battling the election, while he's resorted to airing out his grievances online.

Biden, in the meantime, has pressed along with his transition team, despite the Trump administration's efforts to block them. The president-elect recently announced members of his incoming administration, including chief of staff Ron Klain, and several other White House appointees.

Here are the officials that have left their Trump-appointed positions since the election:

November 17:

Trump fired Chris Krebs, director of CISA, after the agency released a statement that called the 2020 election "the most secure in American history." Krebs reacted to his departure in a tweet: "Honored to serve. We did it right."

November 12:

John McEntee, director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, requested resignation letters from Bryan Ware, assistant director for cybersecurity at CISA and Valerie Boyd, assistant secretary for international affairs at DHS. The Washington Post reported that the administration pushed out the two officials as part of an effort to remove anyone who hasn't been sufficiently loyal to the president.

November 10:

A slew of top Pentagon officials left their posts, just one day after Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper. That list included his chief of staff Jen Stewart, deputy chief of staff Alexis Ross, Undersecretary of Defense for intelligence and security Joseph Kernan, and acting Undersecretary of Defense for policy James Anderson. They have been replaced by a crew of Trump loyalists. Anderson previously clashed with the White House when it tried to hire controversial figures, Politico reported, yet he did not clarify reasons for leaving in his resignation letter.

November 9:

Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Twitter and replaced him with National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller. The president did not say why he made the move, yet for months there had been talks to remove the top Pentagon official, who opposed Trump's decision to deploy active-duty troops to quell national protests over racial injustice.

Richard Pilger, the Department of Justice's election-crimes division chief, also resigned after Attorney General William Barr authorized investigations into voter fraud, violating longstanding policy that prevents the DOJ from interfering in elections.

Reports surfaced about possible plans to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel, but they haven't materialized yet.

November 6:

Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which is responsible for safeguarding the nation's nuclear weapons, resigned. Defense News reported that her decision likely occurred because of nearly a year's worth of clashes with Trump's Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette.

The Trump administration ousted another energy official, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Neil Chatterjee, a longtime fossil fuel supporter who recently hinted at climate-friendly policies, which the president has opposed.

Bonnie Click, deputy administrator of US Agency for International Development,was also forced out. The White House sent her a letter that she needed to resign by 5 p.m. otherwise she'd be terminated without cause, sources told CNN. She had no intentions to leave, yet that evening the agency announced her replacement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here are all the Trump officials who have been fired or resigned since the president's election defeat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least 12 senior Trump administration officials have been ousted or have resigned since the President Donald Trump lost his re-election bid. Trump, who still hasn't conceded the race, has spent the past several days firing off tweets and attacking his staff. Here are the officials that have left their Trump-appointed positions since November 3.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a copy of Obama’s 2016 State of the Union.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The White House is once again making the full text of the State of the Union widely available online. The text, as prepared for delivery, is also available on Medium and Facebook notes, continuing efforts to meet people where they are and make the speech as accessible as possible. Through these digital platforms, people can follow along with the speech as they watch in real time, view charts and infographics on key areas, share their favorite lines, and provide feedback.

---

9:10 P.M. EST

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans:

Tonight marks the eighth year that I've come here to report on the State of the Union. And for this final one, I'm going to try to make it a little shorter. (Applause.) I know some of you are antsy to get back to Iowa. (Laughter.) I've been there. I'll be shaking hands afterwards if you want some tips. (Laughter.)

And I understand that because it's an election season, expectations for what we will achieve this year are low. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach that you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform -- (applause) -- and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse. (Applause.) So, who knows, we might surprise the cynics again.

But tonight, I want to go easy on the traditional list of proposals for the year ahead. Don't worry, I've got plenty, from helping students learn to write computer code to personalizing medical treatments for patients. And I will keep pushing for progress on the work that I believe still needs to be done. Fixing a broken immigration system. (Applause.) Protecting our kids from gun violence. (Applause.) Equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) Paid leave. (Applause.) Raising the minimum wage. (Applause.) All these things still matter to hardworking families. They're still the right thing to do. And I won't let up until they get done.

But for my final address to this chamber, I don't want to just talk about next year. I want to focus on the next five years, the next 10 years, and beyond. I want to focus on our future.

We live in a time of extraordinary change -- change that's reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet, our place in the world. It's change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families. It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists plotting an ocean away. It's change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.

America has been through big changes before -- wars and depression, the influx of new immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change; who promised to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the "dogmas of the quiet past." Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America's promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people. And because we did -- because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril -- we emerged stronger and better than before.

What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation -- our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery, our diversity, our commitment to rule of law -- these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.

In fact, it's that spirit that made the progress of these past seven years possible. It's how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations. It's how we reformed our health care system, and reinvented our energy sector; how we delivered more care and benefits to our troops and veterans, and how we secured the freedom in every state to marry the person we love.

But such progress is not inevitable. It's the result of choices we make together. And we face such choices right now. Will we respond to the changes of our time with fear, turning inward as a nation, turning against each other as a people? Or will we face the future with confidence in who we are, in what we stand for, in the incredible things that we can do together?

So let's talk about the future, and four big questions that I believe we as a country have to answer -- regardless of who the next President is, or who controls the next Congress.

First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy? (Applause.)

Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us -- especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change? (Applause.)

Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman? (Applause.)

And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what's best in us, and not what's worst?

Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (Applause.) We're in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history. (Applause.) More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the '90s, an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever. (Applause.) That's just part of a manufacturing surge that's created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we've done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters. (Applause.)

Anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction. (Applause.) Now, what is true -- and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious -- is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, changes that started long before the Great Recession hit; changes that have not let up.

Today, technology doesn't just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and they face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. Companies have less loyalty to their communities. And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top.

All these trends have squeezed workers, even when they have jobs; even when the economy is growing. It's made it harder for a hardworking family to pull itself out of poverty, harder for young people to start their careers, tougher for workers to retire when they want to. And although none of these trends are unique to America, they do offend our uniquely American belief that everybody who works hard should get a fair shot.

For the past seven years, our goal has been a growing economy that works also better for everybody. We've made progress. But we need to make more. And despite all the political arguments that we've had these past few years, there are actually some areas where Americans broadly agree.

We agree that real opportunity requires every American to get the education and training they need to land a good-paying job. The bipartisan reform of No Child Left Behind was an important start, and together, we've increased early childhood education, lifted high school graduation rates to new highs, boosted graduates in fields like engineering. In the coming years, we should build on that progress, by providing Pre-K for all and -- (applause) -- offering every student the hands-on computer science and math classes that make them job-ready on day one. We should recruit and support more great teachers for our kids. (Applause.)

And we have to make college affordable for every American. (Applause.) No hardworking student should be stuck in the red. We've already reduced student loan payments to 10 percent of a borrower's income. And that's good. But now, we've actually got to cut the cost of college. (Applause.) Providing two years of community college at no cost for every responsible student is one of the best ways to do that, and I'm going to keep fighting to get that started this year. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

But a great education isn't all we need in this new economy. We also need benefits and protections that provide a basic measure of security. It's not too much of a stretch to say that some of the only people in America who are going to work the same job, in the same place, with a health and retirement package for 30 years are sitting in this chamber. (Laughter.) For everyone else, especially folks in their 40s and 50s, saving for retirement or bouncing back from job loss has gotten a lot tougher. Americans understand that at some point in their careers, in this new economy, they may have to retool and they may have to retrain. But they shouldn't lose what they've already worked so hard to build in the process.

That's why Social Security and Medicare are more important than ever. We shouldn't weaken them; we should strengthen them. (Applause.) And for Americans short of retirement, basic benefits should be just as mobile as everything else is today. That, by the way, is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. It's about filling the gaps in employer-based care so that when you lose a job, or you go back to school, or you strike out and launch that new business, you'll still have coverage. Nearly 18 million people have gained coverage so far. (Applause.) And in the process, health care inflation has slowed. And our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law.

Now, I'm guessing we won't agree on health care anytime soon. (Applause.) A little applause right there. (Laughter.) Just a guess. But there should be other ways parties can work together to improve economic security. Say a hardworking American loses his job -- we shouldn't just make sure that he can get unemployment insurance; we should make sure that program encourages him to retrain for a business that's ready to hire him. If that new job doesn't pay as much, there should be a system of wage insurance in place so that he can still pay his bills. And even if he's going from job to job, he should still be able to save for retirement and take his savings with him. That's the way we make the new economy work better for everybody.

I also know Speaker Ryan has talked about his interest in tackling poverty. America is about giving everybody willing to work a chance, a hand up. And I'd welcome a serious discussion about strategies we can all support, like expanding tax cuts for low-income workers who don't have children. (Applause.)

But there are some areas where we just have to be honest -- it has been difficult to find agreement over the last seven years. And a lot of them fall under the category of what role the government should play in making sure the system's not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations. (Applause.) And it's an honest disagreement, and the American people have a choice to make.

I believe a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy. I think there are outdated regulations that need to be changed. There is red tape that needs to be cut. (Applause.) There you go! Yes! (Applause.) But after years now of record corporate profits, working families won't get more opportunity or bigger paychecks just by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everybody else's expense. (Applause.) Middle-class families are not going to feel more secure because we allowed attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients did not cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. (Applause.) Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It's sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. (Applause.)

The point is, I believe that in this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them. (Applause.) And I'm not alone in this. This year I plan to lift up the many businesses who've figured out that doing right by their workers or their customers or their communities ends up being good for their shareholders. (Applause.) And I want to spread those best practices across America. That's part of a brighter future. (Applause.)

In fact, it turns out many of our best corporate citizens are also our most creative. And this brings me to the second big question we as a country have to answer: How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?

Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn't deny Sputnik was up there. (Laughter.) We didn't argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight. And 12 years later, we were walking on the moon. (Applause.)

Now, that spirit of discovery is in our DNA. America is Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. America is Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley, racing to shape a better world. (Applause.) That's who we are.

And over the past seven years, we've nurtured that spirit. We've protected an open Internet, and taken bold new steps to get more students and low-income Americans online. (Applause.) We've launched next-generation manufacturing hubs, and online tools that give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day. But we can do so much more.

Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources that they've had in over a decade. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he's gone to the mat for all of us on so many issues over the past 40 years, I'm putting Joe in charge of Mission Control. (Applause.) For the loved ones we've all lost, for the families that we can still save, let's make America the country that cures cancer once and for all. (Applause.)

Medical research is critical. We need the same level of commitment when it comes to developing clean energy sources. (Applause.) Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you'll be debating our military, most of America's business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it's a problem and intend to solve it. (Applause.)

But even if -- even if the planet wasn't at stake, even if 2014 wasn't the warmest year on record -- until 2015 turned out to be even hotter -- why would we want to pass up the chance for American businesses to produce and sell the energy of the future? (Applause.)

Listen, seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal -- in jobs that pay better than average. We're taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy -- something, by the way, that environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. And meanwhile, we've cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly 60 percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth. (Applause.)

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain't bad, either. (Applause.)

Now we've got to accelerate the transition away from old, dirtier energy sources. Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future -- especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels. We do them no favor when we don't show them where the trends are going. That's why I'm going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet. And that way, we put money back into those communities, and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system. (Applause.)

Now, none of this is going to happen overnight. And, yes, there are plenty of entrenched interests who want to protect the status quo. But the jobs we'll create, the money we'll save, the planet we'll preserve -- that is the kind of future our kids and our grandkids deserve. And it's within our grasp.

Climate change is just one of many issues where our security is linked to the rest of the world. And that's why the third big question that we have to answer together is how to keep America safe and strong without either isolating ourselves or trying to nation-build everywhere there's a problem.

I told you earlier all the talk of America's economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. Let me tell you something. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. (Applause.) Period. It's not even close. It's not even close. (Applause.) It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.) No nation attacks us directly, or our allies, because they know that's the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead -- they call us. (Applause.)

I mean, it's useful to level the set here, because when we don't, we don't make good decisions.

Now, as someone who begins every day with an intelligence briefing, I know this is a dangerous time. But that's not primarily because of some looming superpower out there, and certainly not because of diminished American strength. In today's world, we're threatened less by evil empires and more by failing states.

The Middle East is going through a transformation that will play out for a generation, rooted in conflicts that date back millennia. Economic headwinds are blowing in from a Chinese economy that is in significant transition. Even as their economy severely contracts, Russia is pouring resources in to prop up Ukraine and Syria -- client states that they saw slipping away from their orbit. And the international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality.

It's up to us, the United States of America, to help remake that system. And to do that well it means that we've got to set priorities.

Priority number one is protecting the American people and going after terrorist networks. (Applause.) Both al Qaeda and now ISIL pose a direct threat to our people, because in today's world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage. They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country. Their actions undermine and destabilize our allies. We have to take them out./p>

But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages -- they pose an enormous danger to civilians; they have to be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence. (Applause.) That is the story ISIL wants to tell. That's the kind of propaganda they use to recruit. We don't need to build them up to show that we're serious, and we sure don't need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world's largest religions. (Applause.) We just need to call them what they are -- killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed. (Applause.)

And that's exactly what we're doing. For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL's financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. With nearly 10,000 air strikes, we're taking out their leadership, their oil, their training camps, their weapons. We're training, arming, and supporting forces who are steadily reclaiming territory in Iraq and Syria.

If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote. (Applause.) Take a vote. But the American people should know that with or without congressional action, ISIL will learn the same lessons as terrorists before them. If you doubt America's commitment -- or mine -- to see that justice is done, just ask Osama bin Laden. (Applause.) Ask the leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, who was taken out last year, or the perpetrator of the Benghazi attacks, who sits in a prison cell. When you come after Americans, we go after you. (Applause.) And it may take time, but we have long memories, and our reach has no limits. (Applause.)

Our foreign policy hast to be focused on the threat from ISIL and al Qaeda, but it can't stop there. For even without ISIL, even without al Qaeda, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world -- in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, in parts of Central America, in Africa, and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks. Others will just fall victim to ethnic conflict, or famine, feeding the next wave of refugees. The world will look to us to help solve these problems, and our answer needs to be more than tough talk or calls to carpet-bomb civilians. That may work as a TV sound bite, but it doesn't pass muster on the world stage.

We also can't try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis, even if it's done with the best of intentions. (Applause.) That's not leadership; that's a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It's the lesson of Vietnam; it's the lesson of Iraq -- and we should have learned it by now. (Applause.)

Fortunately, there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.

That's our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we're partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.

That's why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. And as we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war. (Applause.)

That's how we stopped the spread of Ebola in West Africa. (Applause.) Our military, our doctors, our development workers -- they were heroic; they set up the platform that then allowed other countries to join in behind us and stamp out that epidemic. Hundreds of thousands, maybe a couple million lives were saved.

That's how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, and protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia. It cuts 18,000 taxes on products made in America, which will then support more good jobs here in America. With TPP, China does not set the rules in that region; we do. You want to show our strength in this new century? Approve this agreement. Give us the tools to enforce it. It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

Let me give you another example. Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, and set us back in Latin America. That's why we restored diplomatic relations -- (applause) -- opened the door to travel and commerce, positioned ourselves to improve the lives of the Cuban people. (Applause.) So if you want to consolidate our leadership and credibility in the hemisphere, recognize that the Cold War is over -- lift the embargo. (Applause.)

The point is American leadership in the 21st century is not a choice between ignoring the rest of the world -- except when we kill terrorists -- or occupying and rebuilding whatever society is unraveling. Leadership means a wise application of military power, and rallying the world behind causes that are right. It means seeing our foreign assistance as a part of our national security, not something separate, not charity.

When we lead nearly 200 nations to the most ambitious agreement in history to fight climate change, yes, that helps vulnerable countries, but it also protects our kids. When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend on. When we help African countries feed their people and care for the sick -- (applause) -- it's the right thing to do, and it prevents the next pandemic from reaching our shores. Right now, we're on track to end the scourge of HIV/AIDS. That's within our grasp. (Applause.) And we have the chance to accomplish the same thing with malaria -- something I'll be pushing this Congress to fund this year. (Applause.)

That's American strength. That's American leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That's why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo. (Applause.) It is expensive, it is unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies. (Applause.) There's a better way. (Applause.)

And that's why we need to reject any politics -- any politics -- that targets people because of race or religion. (Applause.) Let me just say this. This is not a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity, and our openness, and the way we respect every faith.

His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot that I'm standing on tonight that "to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place." When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer. That's not telling it like it is. It's just wrong. (Applause.) It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country. (Applause.)

"We the People." Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we've come to recognize mean all the people, not just some; words that insist we rise and fall together, and that's how we might perfect our Union. And that brings me to the fourth, and maybe the most important thing that I want to say tonight.

The future we want -- all of us want -- opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living, a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids -- all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates. It will only happen if we fix our politics.

A better politics doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country -- different regions, different attitudes, different interests. That's one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, fiercely, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn't work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice. It doesn't work if we think that our political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise, or when even basic facts are contested, or when we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn't matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.

Too many Americans feel that way right now. It's one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I'll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.

But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task -- or any President's -- alone. There are a whole lot of folks in this chamber, good people who would like to see more cooperation, would like to see a more elevated debate in Washington, but feel trapped by the imperatives of getting elected, by the noise coming out of your base. I know; you've told me. It's the worst-kept secret in Washington. And a lot of you aren't enjoying being trapped in that kind of rancor.

But that means if we want a better politics -- and I'm addressing the American people now -- if we want a better politics, it's not enough just to change a congressman or change a senator or even change a President. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves. I think we've got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. (Applause.) Let a bipartisan group do it. (Applause.)

We have to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families or hidden interests can't bankroll our elections. (Applause.) And if our existing approach to campaign finance reform can't pass muster in the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution -- because it's a problem. And most of you don't like raising money. I know; I've done it. (Applause.) We've got to make it easier to vote, not harder. (Applause.) We need to modernize it for the way we live now. (Applause.) This is America: We want to make it easier for people to participate. And over the course of this year, I intend to travel the country to push for reforms that do just that.

But I can't do these things on my own. (Applause.) Changes in our political process -- in not just who gets elected, but how they get elected -- that will only happen when the American people demand it. It depends on you. That's what's meant by a government of, by, and for the people.

What I'm suggesting is hard. It's a lot easier to be cynical; to accept that change is not possible, and politics is hopeless, and the problem is all the folks who are elected don't care, and to believe that our voices and actions don't matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure. And then, as frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into our respective tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don't look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background.

We can't afford to go down that path. It won't deliver the economy we want. It will not produce the security we want. But most of all, it contradicts everything that makes us the envy of the world.

So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, whether you supported my agenda or fought as hard as you could against it -- our collective futures depends on your willingness to uphold your duties as a citizen. To vote. To speak out. To stand up for others, especially the weak, especially the vulnerable, knowing that each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, stood up for us. (Applause.) We need every American to stay active in our public life -- and not just during election time -- so that our public life reflects the goodness and the decency that I see in the American people every single day.

It is not easy. Our brand of democracy is hard. But I can promise that a little over a year from now, when I no longer hold this office, I will be right there with you as a citizen, inspired by those voices of fairness and vision, of grit and good humor and kindness that helped America travel so far. Voices that help us see ourselves not, first and foremost, as black or white, or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born, not as Democrat or Republican, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word -- voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.

And they're out there, those voices. They don't get a lot of attention; they don't seek a lot of fanfare; but they're busy doing the work this country needs doing. I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you, the American people. And in your daily acts of citizenship, I see our future unfolding.

I see it in the worker on the assembly line who clocked extra shifts to keep his company open, and the boss who pays him higher wages instead of laying him off.

I see it in the Dreamer who stays up late to finish her science project, and the teacher who comes in early because he knows she might someday cure a disease.

I see it in the American who served his time, and made mistakes as a child but now is dreaming of starting over -- and I see it in the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters -- and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe. (Applause.)

I see it in the soldier who gives almost everything to save his brothers, the nurse who tends to him till he can run a marathon, the community that lines up to cheer him on.

It's the son who finds the courage to come out as who he is, and the father whose love for that son overrides everything he's been taught. (Applause.)

I see it in the elderly woman who will wait in line to cast her vote as long as she has to; the new citizen who casts his vote for the first time; the volunteers at the polls who believe every vote should count -- because each of them in different ways know how much that precious right is worth.

That's the America I know. That's the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Undaunted by challenge. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word. (Applause.) That's what makes me so hopeful about our future. I believe in change because I believe in you, the American people.

And that's why I stand here confident as I have ever been that the State of our Union is strong. (Applause.)

Thank you, God bless you. God bless the United States of America.

###

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Remarks of President Barack Obama - State of the Union Address As Delivered

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The White House is once again making the full text of the State of the Union widely available online. The text, as prepared for delivery, is also available on Medium and Facebook notes, continuing efforts to meet people where they are and make the speech as accessible as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/firing-macarthur General MacArthur gets fired by Truman for being looney.

# data[].attributes.body
Jimmy carter accomplished the peace settlement for the Palestinian people in 1978.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump went to the Middle East to visit with other leaders.
https://theconversation.com/diplomat-in-chief-how-did-trump-do-on-his-first-middle-east-visit-78075

# data[].attributes.body
Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High-Priority Infrastructure Projects. Trump signs a lot of executive orders.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/here-s-full-list-donald-trump-s-executive-orders-n720796

# data[].attributes.body
FDR boosted the economy by selling supplies to Britain before being involved with the war

# data[].attributes.body
Trump acting as commander in chief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump 'to order further troop withdrawal' from Afghanistan and Iraq

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq will be reduced to about 2,500 in each country, US media report.

# data[].attributes.body
The administration imposed three tariffs on a total of $250 billion in Chinese imports.
https://www.thebalance.com/donald-trump-economic-plan-3994106

# data[].attributes.body
Grant set the agenda of a relatively peaceful reconstruction.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/us-presidents/ulysses-s-grant-1

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about President Biden meeting with Unions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON-President Biden is scheduled to meet in the White House on Wednesday with senior labor union leaders, and people familiar with the matter say they are hoping to win commitments for a massive federal investment in infrastructure as well as efforts to create jobs in clean tech and alternative energy.

Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions, will be meeting with the president and Vice President Kamala Harris in the Oval Office, and may be joined by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and other labor leaders, according to some of the people.

White House officials have been holding regular meetings with lawmakers and outside groups as the president prepares to unveil an economic recovery package that will focus on improving U.S. infrastructure and creating jobs. Last week, Mr. Biden met with a bipartisan group of senators, as well as mayors and governors.

White House spokesman Vedant Patel said via email that the administration "will evaluate infrastructure proposals based on our energy needs, their ability to achieve economy wide net zero emissions by 2050, and their ability to create good paying union jobs."

Late Tuesday night, the White House confirmed the president's Wednesday meeting with union leaders to discuss infrastructure and the administration's economic relief efforts, but didn't provide any other details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden to Meet With Unions Pushing for Infrastructure Spending

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON-President Biden is scheduled to meet in the White House on Wednesday with senior labor union leaders, and people familiar with the matter say they are hoping to win commitments for a massive federal investment in infrastructure as well as efforts to create jobs in clean tech and alternative energy.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump talks about his plan with immigration, infrastructure, and health care.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/trumps-address-to-congress/trump-s-address-congress-immigration-budget-health-care-more-n727231?scrlybrkr=d197c95f

# data[].attributes.body
Speech by Obama for the graduating Air Force class

# data[].attributes.body
This article was about jimmy carter and how an executive order issued by him was huge.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about some of this best presidents as foreign diplomats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normally, U.S. presidents are ranked overall, without qualification. To date, there has (seemingly) been no ranking of "domestic" presidents, nor "commanders-in chief," nor best "environmental," etc. Yet "foreign policy" can be justified as vital to national life and, indeed, higher than any domestic issue that supports life.

National Security is life itself and rises above any and all parochial or self-centered domestic issues that may occupy national attention. "Black lives matter," "#MeToo" are important for their own constituents, but all of them require the capacity to advance their causes without outside interference. Without security from the beginning, there would not even be a social/political culture able to recognize opportunities for gains within. When security competes with society, invariably the first wins, without question. A country at war or threatened by it has little interest in "equality" back home.

Throughout history, most nations lived side-by-side, a situation that required the "national security state," a reliable military and a masculine social order where war was always just around the bend. By contrast, the U.S. grew up thousands of miles from this order and rarely (if ever) felt these demands. Democracy grew and flourished, and most historical attention focused on home issues (voting, labor, business, health, crime, economy, immigration, ethnic/racial movements, and equalities of all kinds). Even America's greatest and most tragic war was a domestic problem ("civil").

Within this context the ranking of "foreign policy," presidents becomes severely limited. The geopolitical realities of North America were diametrically opposite than those that confronted, say, Prussia under Bismarck, or Russia under the Czars, or France before (and after) World War I. Throughout history, most national leaders would have been ranked almost exclusively on how they advanced state security. To them, that's all that mattered.

Ranking of U.S. "foreign policy" presidents is constrained by these realities. Most U.S. national security problems have originated outside, where the U.S. reacted to circumstances not (mostly) of their doing. German U boats, Pearl Harbor, Hitler, the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, 9/11, etc. all were either arbitrary or imposed from without, which makes "foreign policy presidents" an accident of history. Most American presidents took the oath of office expecting a country to run, not a war. To this day, the American political culture still defines "war" as an aberration, not consistent with political life. ("War is a continuation of politics by other means" comes from Carl von Clausewitz, not Thomas Jefferson).

What follows is more a "listing" than a "ranking." Since most presidents in history did not even have a "foreign" policy, the list is considerably reduced. While most overall rankings list Washington, Lincoln as 1-2, 2-1, we will eliminate Lincoln right away. At one Cabinet meeting, some members wanted to declare war against Britain for supporting the Confederacy. Lincoln (allegedly) replied, "Gentlemen please, one war at a time." That was probably his entire foreign policy but, considering, it was quite timely and, perhaps, even historic.

Continental expansion will not be considered as "foreign" since Manifest Destiny was decidedly domestic. Otherwise, Jefferson and Polk, who were responsible for most expansion, would be the only ones on the list.

The list herein is not "analysis" per se but more critical reflection, subjective, based upon personality and politics. Expect error; response is welcome, actually encouraged. In chronological order:

Washington: Farewell Address (1796) may be the most important foreign policy statement in U.S. history, pledged neutrality and allowed for growth and was not actually abandoned until 1947 (with exceptions), which makes it a 150-year long foreign policy;

Madison: War of 1812 began American nationalism;

Monroe: "Doctrine" defined entire Western Hemisphere, invoked and expanded time and again, abrogated by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2013, making it 190 years old;

McKinley: began naval expansion into Caribbean and Philippines. (Qualification: McKinley was a figurehead, leaders were John Hay, Henry Cabot Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt, Albert Beveridge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, etc.);

Theodore Roosevelt: Panama Canal, Portsmouth Treaty (Japan, Russia), Great White Fleet, first serious imperial moves, prelude to "superpower" and modern nationalism;

Taft: business, "Dollar Diplomacy";

Wilson: American ideology as cornerstone of global identity, "Wilsonianism," "nation-building," father of international organizations, globalization, theory of the "democratic peace";

Republicans, 1920s: "normalcy," isolationism; "arms control" treaties (none of these lasted);

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Good Neighbor Policy, wartime diplomacy, height of "special relationship" with Britain, United Nations, end of isolationism, Yalta, atomic bomb;

Truman: Cold War alliances, Marshall Plan, NATO, Korean War, "New World Order";

Eisenhower: containment, stability, "domino theory";

Kennedy: Cuban Missile Crisis, oratory (Inauguration speech);

Nixon: "Vietnamization," Shanghai Communique (add Kissinger);

Reagan: peaceful end of Cold War, relaxation (summits with Gorbachev), "Iran-Contra";

Since Reagan, the U.S. has turned decidedly inward, taking Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick's advice to be a "normal country in normal times." Clinton's foreign policy of "assertive multilateralism" and Obama's "leading from behind" were exactly what they seemed, or as Obama once defined foreign policy as "sometimes you hit home runs, sometimes you hit singles." Secretary of State Hillary's foreign policy memoir Hard Choices is a travelogue.

For what it's worth, here is a "ranking" in order, of all the foreign policy presidents who deserve any recognition at all. Criteria is: innovation, creativity, longevity, security.

Washington (surprise!), Monroe, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt. Aside from the first, the others may be shuffled back and forth in ranking. Reagan and Truman, for example, are reversible: one began U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union, the other ended it (and the Soviet Union).

But at least all these men had one thing in common.

What was it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best Foreign Policy Presidents | The Institute of World Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normally, U.S. presidents are ranked overall, without qualification. To date, there has (seemingly) been no ranking of "domestic" presidents, nor "commanders-in chief," nor best "environmental," etc. Yet "foreign policy" can be justified as vital to national life and, indeed, higher than any domestic issue that supports life.

# data[].attributes.body
Trump has the strongest approval ratings within his own party of any president
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/09/donald-trump-republican-party?scrlybrkr=0dd4638d

# data[].attributes.body
Ronald Reagan's strong stance against communism defined U.S. foreign policy in the final years of the Cold War.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about celebrating the contributions of the presidents council of advisers on science and technology. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2017/01/09/celebrating-contributions-presidents-council-advisors-science-and-technology

# data[].attributes.body
this article is talking about how these presidents were courageous and a good chief executive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 of the Most Influential U.S. Presidents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Of the men who have been president of the United States, historians agree on just a few who can be ranked among the most influential.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/04/29/100-days-of-commander-in-chief-trump/
Trumps focus is on rebuilding the military, ending illegal immigration, and restoring confidence in our economy, the president is keeping his promises to the American people.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is a speech given by John F. Kennedy to Democrats asking for support for his campaign.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senator KENNEDY. Senator Smathers, Mr. Mayor, Senator Dickinson, Congressman Fascell, Red McEwen, who is going to be the next Congressman from this congressional district [applause], ladies and gentlemen, I come here all the way from Massachusetts, 1,500 miles away, and ask your support in this campaign. I come to this State of Florida, where my family have been residents for 30 years, and I can tell you that Massachusetts and Florida and the United States, I believe need a change. They need motion. They need the Democratic Party, and they need new leadership in the United States. [Applause.] Massachusetts and Florida voted Republican in 1952 and 1956, but I cannot believe in the most difficult and dangerous time, that this Republic has ever faced, that we are going to elect a President of the United States who runs on the slogan "We've never had it so good". [Response from the audience.]

In electing a President of the United States, you must make, above all, your judgment of how good his judgment is. Can he predict with any degree of certainty the flow of events through the world? Can he make a judgment which involves the security of the United States, your well-being, your prosperity, your peace, your future? What is his judgment like? Mr. Nixon's judgment, I believe, is indicated by his willingness in this time of hazard to go to the American people with a campaign promise, the campaign statement, that our prestige has never been higher, that of the Communists has never been lower, that everything that must be done is being done, and just leave it to him, and we will be secure.

I don't hold that view at all. I believe that this is a time of danger and of opportunity. I believe the 1960's can be the best of days or the worst of days, and I believe in the final analysis that it will be secure, that it will be peaceful, that it will be strong, that the economy will go ahead only if the American people have leadership prepared to face the facts and do something about it. [Applause.]

This is no old Republican and Democratic fight. It is true that there are issues which separate us, which are traditional. The Democratic Party in my opinion, and I have been there for 14 years and I have served in the Congress with Democrats and I have served with Republicans - my judgment is that on those issues with which we are familiar, issues involving small business, care for the aged, education for our children, economic growth, full employment, development of our resources, in my opinion, time after time after time the majority of the Republicans have voted no, and the majority of the Democrats have voted yes. [Applause.]

But I do not run on that record. I run as a candidate for the Presidency with full knowledge that unless this country is prepared to pick itself up and get itself off dead center and begin to lead, begin to set an example to the world of what a vital society freedom can be, this country is not going to survive as the strongest, freest country in the world. That is the issue - that is the issue, not any old fights which took place in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Those fights may still go on. We might be defeated on that basis and the country survive. Older people might not be as secure, our schools might not be as good, but the real issue is your judgment as citizens, as informed citizens, capable of exercising your franchise, it is your judgment of whether this country can afford to stand still or whether we can be secure, whether living in Florida 90 miles, as Senator Smathers said, off the coast of Cuba, and close to all the world, a few minutes from all the world, whether this country can afford leadership as usual, leadership which is so misinformed about the current of history that it chooses to run on the slogan in 1960 of peace and prosperity, as if nothing was wrong, as if everything was being done; as if our society was on the move, as if we did not live face to face with risk.

I don't run on that basis and it is your judgment what kind of leadership you want. If you want leadership that seeks to please you, if you want leadership that will tell you that everything is all right when it is not, vote for Mr. Nixon. [Response from the audience.] But if you have the courage to face the facts of our time, to recognize that this country deserves the best of all of us, and more than anything it deserves the truth, then I ask your support. [Applause.]

Twenty years ago this month, Franklin Roosevelt talked to the nations of Latin America, and this is what he said about the Nazi menace:

So bound together as we can be, we are able to withstand any attack from the east or from the west. Together we are able to ward off any infiltration of alien political and economic ideas that would destroy our freedom and our democracy.

And as a result of his leadership, as a result of his call to arms, the Nazi effort to destroy freedom in Latin America was defeated.

I contrast that call to the dim, silent trumpet that this administration has given forth in the last few years. In Cuba, the Communists have established a satellite. In Venezuela, angry mobs assault the Vice President of the United States. In Mexico City, rioting mobs have protested American policy and castigated America, itself. In Panama, anti-American demonstrations have imperiled the Canal. In Brazil, the newly elected President of Brazil felt it incumbent upon him to make a journey to Havana to call on Mr. Castro in order to get his benediction in that race for the Presidency of Brazil, not to Washington - not to Washington - to Havana. Every report from Latin America, every new dispatch from the south brings fresh news of unrest and tension, and we have not seen the worst of it. We have not seen the worst of it. This struggle is going to go on through all of Latin America, through all of Africa, and through all of Asia for the next decade.

I am confident that we can be successful. But we cannot be successful if we demonstrate the lamentable lack of concern that we have shown for the last eight years. [Applause.] With the great tide sweeping Latin America that wanted freedom, what did this administration do? In 1953, the dictator of Peru was given a medal by the United States. In 1954, the dictator of Venezuela was awarded the Legion of Merit by the American Ambassador. In 1956, the dictator of Paraguay received his medal from America. In 1955, our Secretary of the Navy compared Peron to Lincoln in Peron's favor. The results of these blunders have been disastrous.

The people of Latin America have not felt we are concerned about freedom. They fear we are really concerned about them only as pawns in the cold war. We are more interested, they think, in our investments in those countries than in the people. And thus when the dictatorships fell, and they are falling every day, our actions and our identification was remembered.

Secondly, our major failure in that area has been to assist these people in achieving any kind of economic existence. Do you know that with these people who need a better life, who need land reform, who need a new deal, that there is in every square of every city in Latin America a Franklin D. Roosevelt Park? There is no park named after Harding or Coolidge or the President or the Vice President. There is Franklin D. Roosevelt Park. [Applause.]

This has been the basic area of our national security since Monroe. In the last 8 years we gave 5 percent of all of our economic aid to Latin America, 95 percent to the rest of the world, and we wonder why Castro spreads the doctrine of communism and revolt throughout all of Latin America.

Mr. Nixon himself was in Latin America 5 years ago and here is what he said: "If we had produced economic progress in Cuba we might have averted the Cuban takeover." Why didn't we? That is what he said a month ago; why didn't we in 1955 come forward with a program that would have prevented Castro from taking power?

When he was there in 1955, he said, and you can judge his experience, "I am convinced that communism has passed its highwater mark in Latin America," at a time when the Communists were about to communize Cuba.

Our third failure has been our inability to establish contact with the young people of that area that will run the country. We have brought in the last 8 years less than 400 young men and women from all the countries of Latin America each year to study in our great country, to learn about freedom, to identify themselves with us. And we have suspended in the last 8 years the "Voice of America" program in Spanish to Latin America; the only time we ran a regular "Voice of America" program to Latin America was 3 months during the Hungarian crisis.

Can you tell me what they have been doing for the last 8 years, when in Africa and Latin America and Asia the United States has been on the decline as a powerful country? At the very time when these people stand as they now do on the edge of decision, we have been indifferent, we have been indifferent.

These are the problems that the United States is going to have to begin to face. We are going to have to begin to build a strong society here in the United States. Franklin Roosevelt was a good neighbor in Latin America because he was a good neighbor in the United States, and because he ran an administration which was progressive, which was compassionate, which identified itself with the people of this country. If we are building a strong society here, if our economy is on the move here in the United States, if we identify ourselves with the people, if we provide a better life for all Americans, regardless of their race, regardless of their religion, the full use of their constitutional rights, if we hold out the hand of friendship to all those around the world, then once more the United States can serve as the symbol of freedom; then once more people will begin to feel that we are on the rise, that we are on the move. And I cannot believe that given a choice between two societies, a dictatorship and a vital society identified with freedom - I believe they will choose us. I believe they will say freedom, yes. [Applause.]

Franklin Roosevelt said 20 years ago, "I well recall during my recent visit to the three great capitals in South America I heard one constant cry, 'Viva la Democracia'." Now, 20 years later, do our Presidents and Vice Presidents hear that call? Do we hear that call through Latin America and around the world? I believe that it is incumbent on the next President of the United States to, at the beginning of his term of office, indicate by action and word his belief in the solidarity of the Western hemisphere, his belief in a Western Hemisphere which is common to democracy from top to bottom, his belief that the people of this hemisphere can provide through freedom a better life, his undying hostility to the Communist system, his undying hostility to all dictatorships, his belief that the cause of freedom and the cause of people identifying themselves and developing their own resources is the great cause of the 1960's.

That is what we fight for, the most revolutionary of all doctrines, the right of people to be free. Mr. Castro is identified with a tired and aging system that ultimately will collapse. But we have to demonstrate to them that we are not a finished country, that we are not an old country, that we are not an old people, but, instead, we are a young people on the move, the youngest republic in the world in many ways.

Therefore, I come to Florida tonight and I come as the leader of the oldest political party in the world, the Democratic Party [applause] but I want Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. Castro to know that after this election a new generation of Americans has assumed responsibility of leadership, men who fought in Europe and in the Pacific in order to maintain this country's freedom, and they are not going to preside over its liquidation, here, in Latin America, in Africa, Asia, or any place in the world. [Applause.]

I want the people of Latin America and Africa and Asia to wake up in the morning and wonder what this country is doing, and wonder what the President of the United States is doing and saying, and not what Castro or Khrushchev is saying. [Applause.]

So we come here and ask your help. This decision is yours. It is not ours. All we can do is present a sober analysis of our problems and opportunities, and in this great country of ours you must make the final judgment. And I believe that in your judgment you will come to the conclusion really of what kind of a society you want, what kind of a country you want, what kind of a world you want, what kind of a system you want to prevail throughout the world. I believe that we are going to choose in the 1960's progress; that we are going to make the same decision in 1960 that we made in 1932. We are going to say "Yes" to progress. We are going to say it is time for a change. It is time to turn those out of office who look at the world around us and our own problems with a pallid, pale view of life and its possibilities. I believe the revitalization of the American system is our challenge and the great issue of the 1960 campaign, and on that basis I ask your help. Thank you. [Applause.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Speech of Senator John F. Kennedy, Tampa, FL, Hillsborough County Courthouse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senator KENNEDY. Senator Smathers, Mr. Mayor, Senator Dickinson, Congressman Fascell, Red McEwen, who is going to be the next Congressman from this congressional district [applause], ladies and gentlemen, I come here all the way from Massachusetts, 1,500 miles away, and ask your support in this campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
As being the part chief you have the ability to to campaign for someone you support and get them re elected.

# data[].attributes.body
Truman dropping the sun.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about former president Obama signing the renewal of the export-import bank. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/05/30/president-obama-signs-renewal-export-import-bank

# data[].attributes.body
Former president Jimmy Carter worked as a Chief Diplomat by working with the Middle East and creating a peace settlement.
Chief Diplomat (freeservers.com)

# data[].attributes.body
Trump didn’t have much experience, but he had a lot of on job learning, it says that every president makes mistakes with this.

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Clinton takes an interview to reassure the American People.

# data[].attributes.body
In June of 2018 former president went to the hermit kingdom and met the ‘president’ of the nation

# data[].attributes.body
This article talked about Trump’s economic plans and policies. https://www.thebalance.com/donald-trump-economic-plan-3994106

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because it is talking about all the things president biden wants to accomplish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
president biden zeroes in on policy: here are 6 top priorities - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden zeroes in on policy: Here are 6 top priorities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joe Biden has been President of the United States for nearly a month, but his political agenda is only just coming into focus in Washington, now that the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump are over.

# data[].attributes.body
The head of state is a symbolic part of the u.s, Donald’s trump wasn’t a very good head of state and here’s why.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/politics/donald-trump-lsu-clemson-cheers/index.html?scrlybrkr=9aa2f029
Donald Trump attends the national championship will other American citizens

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example of chief diplomat because it it talking about the treaties president trump made while he was in office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When President Donald Trump said last month that the United States was dropping out of the arms trade treaty, The Washington Post sighed that it was "the latest illustration of his aversion to international agreements and world governance." Obviously, Trump doesn't like some treaties.

# data[].attributes.body
When the Obamas met the Queen.

# data[].attributes.body
Former president Jimmy Carter is and example because he made an executive order to review the people that avoided military service during the draft for the Vietnam war. He also proposed a spending and taxation plan to congress.
Chief Executive (freeservers.com)

# data[].attributes.body
The wrinkly face of England

# data[].attributes.body
This is a list of all of the kinds of executive actions Trump has taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since Donald Trump took office early this year he has signed a long and ever-growing list of executive orders, hoping to fulfill a number of his campaign promises.

In his first three weeks alone, Trump signed a burst of orders to undo many of President Barack Obama's policies. Later in June, in his first meeting with his Cabinet, he claimed to have accomplished more than most previous U.S. presidents:

"Never has there been a president - with few exceptions, in the case of FDR, he had a major Depression to handle - who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than what we've done," Trump said. "I think we've been about as active as you can possibly be at a just about record-setting pace."

Trump's claim hinges on the slew of executive orders he has signed, which in his first 100 days exceeded that of any other recent president.

Here's an updated overview of each of Trump's orders:
"Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" Signed: Jan. 20, 2017
Hours after being sworn in, Trump signed an executive order aimed at reversing the Affordable Care Act - Obama's landmark legislation - which Republicans vowed to "repeal and replace" throughout the campaign.

The executive order states that the Trump administration will "seek prompt repeal" of the law. To minimize the "economic burden" of Obamacare, the order instructs the secretary of health and human services and other agency heads to "waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation" of any part of the law that places a fiscal burden on the government, businesses or individuals.

Also in the order are directions to give states more control over implementing health care laws.
"Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High-Priority Infrastructure Projects" Signed: Jan. 24, 2017
The order outlines how the administration will expedite environmental reviews and approval of "high priority" infrastructure projects, such as repairs to bridges, airports and highways.

The order directs the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), within 30 days of a request, to determine a project's environmental impact and decide whether it is "high priority." Project review deadlines are to be put in place by the CEQ's chairman.

The order is widely believed to have been issued in response to the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
"Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" Signed: Jan. 25, 2017
The order outlines changes to a few immigration policies, but most notably it strips federal grant money to so-called sanctuary cities.

In addition, the secretary of homeland security is ordered to hire 10,000 more immigration officers, create a publicly available weekly list of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and review previous immigration policies.

The order also creates an office to assist the victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and calls on local and state police to detain or apprehend people in the United States illegally.
"Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" Signed: Jan. 25, 2017
The order is aimed at fulfilling one of Trump's key campaign promises - enhancing border security - by directing federal funding to construction of a wall along the Mexico-U.S. border. It instructs the secretary of homeland security to prepare congressional budget requests for the wall and to "end the abuse of parole and asylum provisions" that complicate the removal of undocumented immigrants.

Other parts of the order call for hiring 5,000 more Border Patrol agents, building facilities to hold undocumented immigrants near the Mexican border and ending "catch-and-release" protocols, in which immigrants in the United States without documentation are not detained while they await court hearings.
"Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States" Signed: Jan. 27, 2017
The order suspends the entry of immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries - Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia - for 90 days and stops all refugees from entering the country for 120 days. Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely. During the time of the ban, the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of state will review and revise the refugee admission process.

Also in the order is the suspension of Obama's 2012 Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allowed frequent U.S. tourists to bypass the visa interview process.

White House officials have made a number of contradictory statements, at times calling the order a "ban" and at other times referring to it as a "travel restriction." After the order was signed, thousands of protesters popped up at airports across the country to denounce it.
"Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees" Signed: Jan. 28, 2017
This order stops all executive branch officials from lobbying for five years after they leave office and places a lifetime ban on lobbying a foreign government.

The order enacts a number of other lobbying restrictions, including banning appointees from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists and banning appointees who were lobbyists from participating in any issues they petitioned for within the last two years.

Some raised concerns over how Trump will fill the jobs in his administration under the new rules.
"Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs" Signed: Jan. 30, 2017
The order states that executive departments and agencies must slash two regulations for every one new regulation proposed. Regulation spending cannot exceed $0, and any costs associated with regulations must be offset with eliminations.

The order also directs the head of each agency to keep records of the cost savings, to be sent to the president.
"Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System" Signed: Feb. 3, 2017
The order lays the administration's "Core Principles" regarding the U.S. financial system, which includes:

Making regulation "efficient, effective and appropriately tailored"

Preventing government bailouts

Ensuring that U.S. firms are competitive with foreign companies

The order directs the treasury secretary to review financial regulations and report back to the president 120 days later with a determination of whether current policies promote the "Core Principles."
"Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety" Signed: Feb. 9, 2017
The order directs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to create a task force that would propose new legislation to reduce crime, highlighting drug trafficking, illegal immigration and violent crime. The task force will submit yearly reports to the president.

Throughout the campaign, Trump promised voters a return to "law and order" in the United States and said minorities from inner cities are "living in hell" because of violent crime.
"Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers" Signed: Feb. 9, 2017
The order calls on the Justice Department to "enhance the protection and safety" of law enforcement by increasing penalties for crimes committed against officers.

The attorney general is also instructed to review and determine whether existing federal laws adequately protect law enforcement and later to propose legislation to better protect officers. The order directs the Justice Department to recommend changes in federal grant funding to law enforcement programs if they do not protect officers.
"Enforcing Federal Law With Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking" Signed: Feb. 9, 2016
The order outlines the administration's approach to cutting down on organized crime - including gangs, cartels and racketeering organizations - by enhancing cooperation with foreign governments and the ways in which federal agencies share information and data.

It identifies human trafficking, drug smuggling, financial crimes, cyber-crime and corruption as "a threat to public safety and national security."

The Threat Mitigation National Intelligence - of which Sessions, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and the secretary of homeland security are co-chairmen - will review and recommend changes to federal agencies' practices in a report to be delivered to the president within 120 days.
"Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Justice" Signed: Feb. 9, 2017
Two weeks after Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, this order changes the order of succession for Sessions, who won approval as attorney general last week. The sequence is: the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri.

A week before leaving office, Obama signed an executive order changing the order of succession without explanation.
"Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda" Signed: Feb. 24, 2017
Under this order, each agency must designate an official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO), who will be responsible for reviewing current regulations and making recommendations to the agency head on how to modify them. The RRO must hone in on certain regulations, such as those that are outdated or are perceived to curtail job creation.

The order reiterate's Trump's plan to cut down on regulations and comes nearly a month after the president signed an executive order requiring agencies to slash two regulations for every one proposed.
"Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule" Signed Feb. 28, 2017
The order calls on federal agencies to revise a regulation put in place by former president Barack Obama called the Clean Water Rule. Signed in 2015, the rule expanded the number of bodies of water protected by the federal government to include streams, ponds and smaller waterways.

Trump's order directs the administrator of the EPA and the assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works to review the rule and propose a new one that either eliminates or revises Obama's rule.
"White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities" Signed Feb. 28, 2017
The order transfers the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (WHHBCU) from the Department of Education to the Executive Office of the President. Since its creation under President Ronald Reagan, the initiative had been under the purview of the Education Department.

Trump met with dozens of HBCU presidents the day prior for a listening session, which many students and college leaders were quick to protest out of skepticism that the president was using the meeting as a PR stunt.

In an interview with NBC News, Omarosa Manigault said of the order, "We understand that the executive order starts the action but there are so many different steps in terms of defining programming."
"Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the U.S." Signed: March 6, 2017
The order revises Trump's original U.S. immigration ban, which was hit with dozens of lawsuits shortly after being signed in February and blocked by a federal judge in Washington state. The new order, which goes into effect March 16, bans citizens from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days.

The countries include Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya. Iraq was removed from the list after the Iraqi government said it would increase information sharing with the United States.
"Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch" Signed: March 13, 2017
The order assigns the Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney to propose a plan to "reorganize and governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies" in an effort to cut down of federal spending and improve "efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of that agency." Within 180 days, the heads of select agencies must submit individual plans to Mulvaney, who will have another 180 days to send a plan to the president.

During a daily press briefing, Press Secretary Sean Spicer called the executive order "long overdue" and said agencies will undergo a "thorough investigation" into fiscal waste, though he was unable to provide a target goal for the amount of money the order aims to save.
"The Revocation of Federal Contracting Executive Orders" Signed: March 27, 2017
The executive order revokes key components of the Obama administration's previous executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, gay rights advocates say.

Organizations representing the LGBTQ community say the "Presidential Executive Order on the Revocation of Federal Contracting Executive Orders" hobbles several of Obama's previous orders including the "Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces" order by revoking the requirement that companies seeking federal contracts prove they've complied with federal laws banning discrimination based on sexual identity or orientation.
"Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth" Signed: March 28, 2017
The order directs the Environmental Protection Agency to review another executive order, called the Clean Power Plan, signed by Barack Obama in 2014. Obama's plan, which aimed to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, was halted by the Supreme Court in 2016.

Trump's new order also asks agencies to review any regulations that could "potentially burden the development or use" of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. Within 180 days, the agencies must submit reports to the Office of Management and Budget, which will take action to eliminate regulations.
"Establishing the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis" Signed: March 29, 2017
The order creates the "Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and Opioid Crisis," which will study the federal government's effectiveness in fighting drug addiction by reviewing funding levels, accessibility of treatment services, prescription practices and youth educational messages. A report will be sent to the president within 90 days of the order being signed.

Trump appointed Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey as head of the commission.
"Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits" Signed: March 31, 2017
The order directs the Commerce Department and U.S. Trade Representative to compile a report on trade practices that contribute to the trade deficit. The report will look at each of America's trade partners and assess whether the country's trade practices unfairly discriminate against the U.S.

Forms of discrimination the report will assess includes non-tariff barriers, anti-dumping and intellectual property theft. Within 90 days, the report will be sent to the White House detailing causes for the deficit.
"Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Justice" Signed: March 31, 2017
The order changes the succession line for the Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The new sequence is:

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas

"Establishing Enhanced Collection and Enforcement of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties and Violations of Trade and Customs Law" Signed: March, 31, 2017
The order directs the secretary of homeland security to develop a plan within 90 days to combat two types of non-trade barriers placed against the U.S.: anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

The order also directs the DHS Secretary and Treasury secretary to step up seizure of counterfeit goods and protect American companies from intellectual property right infringement.

"Buy American, Hire American" Signed: April 18, 2017
The order has two parts. The "Hire American" portion of the bill targets the H-1B visa program, which allows businesses to hire high-skilled workers from outside the U.S., by putting less emphasis on the lottery system used to determine which companies can sponsor visas.

The "Buy American" portion of the order directs agencies to tighten rules that give priority to U.S. companies when hiring contractors or purchasing goods. This would be done by reducing the use of waivers and exceptions to current laws. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross must submit a review of "Buy American" loopholes within 220 days.
"Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens" Signed: April 21, 2017
The order directs Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin to review within 60 days all tax regulations put in place in 2016 and 2017 that put an "undue financial burden on United States taxpayers."

Within 150 days, Mnunchin will submit a plan to the president detailing ways to alleviate "the burden imposed by regulations" identified in the initial review.
"Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America" Signed: April 25, 2017
The order creates a task force, led by Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, that will identify policy options to promote U.S. agriculture business and job growth in rural America. The task force must submit a report to Trump within 180 days.

The task force will look at regulations that impede U.S. agricultural growth and for ways to encourage the use of agricultural products made in America.
"Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act" Signed: April 26, 2017
The order directs the Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke to review federal monument designations - including national parks - made since 1996 that cover more than 100,000 acres of land. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, presidents have the power to protect land.

Trump's order names one national monument designation in particular: Obama's 1.35 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. Zinke must submit a report to Trump within 45 days.
"Enforcing Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control of Education" Signed: April 26, 2017
Under the order, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is directed to study federal overreach in local and state education systems.

As a strong advocate for charter schools, DeVos will determine within 300 days whether federal education regulations take control away from states in areas such as curriculum, school administration and textbook or library content.
"Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection" Signed: April 27, 2017
The order is aimed at improving accountability within the Department of Veterans Affairs, which found itself at the center of a 2014 controversy in which dozens of veterans reportedly died while on the wait list for medical care. The order directs Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin to create the "Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection" in the department within 45 days.

The office will be charged with investigating wrongdoing within the department and terminating any VA employee who fails to "carry out his or her duties on behalf of veterans."

"We will always stand with those who stood for freedom and who stood for us. They protected us, they made it all possible, and now we're going to protect and take care of them," Trump said at the signing.
"Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy" Signed: April 28, 2017
The order reverses a ban on Arctic leasing put in place under the Obama administration in December and directs Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review areas available for off-shore oil and gas exploration.

"We are unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying American energy jobs," President Trump said during the announcement.
"Establishment of Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy" Signed: April 29, 2017
The order establishes the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, which will advise Trump on policies to increase economic growth and decrease the trade deficit. Leading the new office is Trump appointee and National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro, who said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA.

The office will also help implement the "Buy American, Hire American" executive order signed by Trump on April 18.
"Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses" Signed: April 29, 2017
The order directs Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to review all U.S. trade agreements, as well as relations with countries that run trade deficits with America.

Within 180 days, Ross must send a performance review to Trump detailing any violations.
"Establishment of the American Technology Council" Signed: May 1, 2017
The order launches the American Technology Council, headed by 19 different Trump administration officials and cabinet members who will be tasked with modernizing the federal government's digital services and technology.

The task force, which ends in 2021, will "coordinate the vision, strategy, and direction" regarding the federal government's use of information technology.
"Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty" Signed: May 4, 2017
The order eases IRS enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which bans churches from engaging in political speech. It also gives relief to companies that disagree with the Affordable Care Act mandate on contraception in health care coverage.

Although the order shows Trump delivering on a key campaign promise, congressional approval is needed to fully repeal the law.

"Establishment of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity" Signed: May 11, 2017
The order creates a commission, led by Vice President Mike Pence, to investigate allegations of voter fraud and voter suppression in the U.S. voting process. The commission, called the "Presidential Commission on Election Integrity," will review vulnerabilities in the election system.

It comes following persistent and unfounded claims by President Donald Trump that the 2016 election was rigged and that millions of "illegals" voted to cost him the popular vote.
"Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure" Signed: May 11, 2017
The order aims to strengthen the cybersecurity of networks within the federal government by having agency heads adhere to an outlined plan.

It directs the Director of the American Technology Council to present a report to Trump within 90 days outlining steps to take for a "modern, secure, and more resilient" IT structure. The Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Homeland Security are also directed to find ways to "dramatically [reduce] threats perpetrated by automated and distributed attacks."
"Expanding Apprenticeships in America" Signed: June 15, 2017
The order calls for the establishment of the Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion, led and appointed by the labor secretary, which will "identify strategies and proposals to promote apprenticeships, especially in sectors where apprenticeship programs are insufficient."

Apprenticeships, defined in the order as paid work with an educational component, are aimed at providing workers with relevant experience and skills that offer affordable paths to employment.

The order provides funding to promote apprenticeship programs across different industries, calls for the expansion of apprenticeship participation among students at educational institutions and instructs agencies to eliminate current federally funded apprenticeship programs deemed ineffective.
"Amending Executive Order 13597" Signed: June 21, 2017
The order amends an executive order issued by the Obama administration on visa and foreign visitor processing that aimed "to enhance and expedite travel to and arrival in the United States by foreign nationals."

It eliminates the clause that required 80 percent of non-immigrant visa applicants to be interviewed within three weeks of application receipt, and calls on the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to revise the visa expediting implementation plan laid out in Obama's order "as necessary and appropriate."
"Reviving the National Space Council" Signed: June 30, 2017
The order "revives" The National Space Council, a council tasked with advising the president on space strategy that was first established in a 1989 executive order by George H. W. Bush. It appoints the Vice President as chairman and establishes the agency heads that will compose it.

The council will meet at least annually to review policies and develop strategies for space activity. The order mandates that the group submit a report to the President "setting forth its assessment of, and recommendations for, the space policy and strategy of the United States Government" within the next year.

"The establishment of the council is another demonstration of the Trump Administration's deep interest in our work, and a testament to the importance of space exploration to our economy, our nation, and the planet as a whole," said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot in a statement about the order.
"Allowing Additional Time for Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Amending Executive Order 13761" Signed: July 11, 2017
The order comes in relation to a 1997 executive order issued by Bill Clinton, which named Sudan an "unusual and extraordinary threat to national security" for its support of terrorism, attempts at destabilizing regional governments, and serious human rights violations. The original order imposed a number of sanctions on Sudan, including a halt of all import and export deals with the country.

President Trump's new order is issued a day before a deadline proposed in a related executive order issued by the Obama administration, which pointed out that Sudan had since taken positive actions to address the issues cited in Clinton's order and called for a reevaluation of the punitive sanctions. Obama's order instructed relevant government bodies to "provide to the President a report on whether the Government of Sudan has sustained the positive actions" on or before July 12, 2017.

Trump's order extends the deadline for the report to October 12, 2017 to allow for "additional fact-finding and a more comprehensive analysis of the Government of Sudan's actions." It also revokes a section of Obama's order requiring the same report to be updated annually and made available to the public.
"Establishing a Presidential Advisory Council on Infrastructure" Signed: July 19, 2017
The order creates a Presidential Advisory Council on Infrastructure within the Department of Commerce in order to "advance infrastructure projects that create high-quality jobs for American workers, enhance productivity, improve quality of life, protect the environment, and strengthen economic growth."

The council will be composed of up to 15 members appointed by Trump, private citizens with expertise in areas such as finance, real estate, construction and environmental policy. The group will submit a report to the president on potential infrastructure projects that could be carried out over the next 10 years, and is scheduled to be dissolved shortly after, unless given an extension by the president.
"Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States" Signed: July 21, 2017
The order names national manufacturing as essential to economic strength and national security of the United States, and calls the loss of manufacturing jobs and an industrial base in the country a threat to national security.

In light of this, it demands that the Secretary of Defense and other relevant agencies provide "a comprehensive evaluation of the defense industrial base and supply chains" within 270 days of the executive order. The report will assess the strengths and weaknesses of national manufacturing capabilities, identify the manufacturing goods most essential to national security and recommend pertinent action by the President.
"Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure" Signed: August 15, 2017
The order aims to increase the efficiency of the Federal infrastructure permitting process and revokes an Obama-era Executive Order that created stricter environmental review standards for federal projects in flood-prone areas.

It establishes "One Federal Decision" for major infrastructure projects, assigning each project a lead Federal agency and creating a performance accountability system to track its progress. It also sets a goal of 2 years for the average completion time of the permitting process. While announcing the order, Trump called the current permitting process "a massive, self imposed wound."

The order also revokes Executive Order 13690, which mandated stricter environmental review standards in floodplains as part of Obama's Climate Action Plan. That order required planners use flooding predictions that incorporated climate science.
"Imposing Sanctions with Respect to the Situation in Venezuela" Signed: August 25, 2017
The order prohibits the purchase of certain Venezuelan government bonds on the American market while still allowing for the import of crude oil.

Trump narrowly tailored sanctions to disrupt the Venezuelan government's ability to raise money by selling bonds or securities within the United States. The sanctions were in response to reports of human rights abuses and increasing authoritarianism in Venezuela, including the dissolution of the elected legislature. The country's economy is in shambles; the International Monetary Fund predicts its inflation rate will reach 2,349% in 2018.
"Restoring State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement's Access to Life-Saving Equipment and Resources" Signed: August 28, 2017
The order revokes Obama-era limits on the repurposing of military equipment for law enforcement use.

On January 16, 2015, the former president issued an Executive Order seeking to limit police access to repurposed military gear. The order came in the wake of national criticism surrounding the police crackdown on protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, which included armored vehicles, tear gas, and heavily armed riot police in camouflage. Protesters were responding to the killing of Michael Brown, an 18-year old black man shot by white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.

Obama later approved recommendations that banned the transfer of certain equipment - like tracked armored vehicles and grenade launchers - to police forces completely, and mandated strict new guidelines for departments that acquired other military-issue devices.

The executive order nullifies those restrictions. On the day of the signing, Jeff Sessions told a Fraternal Order of Police conference in Nashville that the Executive Order would "send a strong message that we will not allow criminal activity, violence and lawlessness to become the new normal."
"Proposed Acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by China Venture Capital Fund Corporation Limited" Signed: September 13, 2017
The order bars a Chinese-backed venture capital firm from purchasing an American semiconductor company.

Trump acted in accordance with a r ecommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), who determined the proposed takeover of the Lattice Semiconductor Corporation by an investment group linked to the Chinese government threatened national security interests. Lattice produces integrated circuits that could conceivably have military applications. In describing the risk, CFIUS cited the transfer of intellectual property, the Chinese government's role in the deal, the importance of domestic semiconductor supply chain integrity, and the previous use of Lattice products by the US Government as the main factors in their decision.
"Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea" Signed September 21, 2017
The order imposes wide-ranging sanctions that penalize North Korea and anyone doing business with the country.

It seeks to cut off sources of revenue to North Korea and punish anyone trading in goods, services, or technology with the country, including by barring ships or planes that enter North Korea from the United States for 180 days. The order allows the Secretary of the Treasury to sanction any foreign financial institution that conducts business with North Korea or North Korean individuals involved in illicit trade.

The order came shortly after North Korean conducted two intercontinental ballistic missile launches and an underground nuclear test. In a speech to the UN General Assembly three days before the signing of the Order, Trump told foreign leaders, "No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well being of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea."
"Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees" Signed September 29, 2017
The order extends certain federal advisory committees until September 30, 2019.

Trump extended 32 federal advisory committees, including the Invasive Species Advisory Committee, the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee, and the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Presidents routinely issue similar orders extending the lifetime of federal advisory committees.
"Revocation of Executive Order Creating Labor-Management Forums" Signed September 29, 2017
The order revokes an Obama-era Executive order that established a National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations and mandated the creation of labor-management forums.

Obama signed Executive Order 13522 in 2009, which created the 10 person National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations to advise the president on labor-management relations in the executive branch. It also created Labor-Management forums - committees or councils meant to increase dialogue between managers and employees represented by unions in the federal government. Trump ended both, describing the efforts as a waste of taxpayer resources and a failure in the Order.
"Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States" Signed October 12, 2017
Trump's Executive Order on health care seeks to do three main things: allow small businesses more leeway to group together when providing or purchasing insurance, increase the availability and duration of short-term health insurance plans and widen the use of Health Reimbursement Arrangements, which let employers reimburse employees for health expenses rather than provide insurance themselves.

Analysts expect it will increase the availability of cheaper, bare bones plans for the young and healthy and raise premiums for older and sicker Americans. On Twitter, Senator Chuck Schumer called it "a spiteful act of vast pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's the full list of President Donald Trump's executive orders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since Donald Trump took office early this year he has signed a long and ever-growing list of executive orders, hoping to fulfill a number of his campaign promises. In his first three weeks alone, Trump signed a burst of orders to undo many of President Barack Obama's policies.

# data[].attributes.body
Queen Elizabeth can be an example of head of state. She represents the people.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about a poll taken in which the military disproves of President Trump as Commander and Chief.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
trump declares himself the 'law and order' president as peaceful protesters are dispersed - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump's allies grow frustrated with White House response amid national upheaval

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As President Donald Trump remains out of public view and as his aides deliberate how and whether he should address some of the worst racial unrest in decades some of his allies are growing increasingly frustrated with what has felt like silence from the White House.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is talking about Trump no longer having his agenda planner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/07/is-donald-trump-losing-his-agenda-setting-power/

# data[].attributes.body
The president showing he is chief diplomat by meeting with other countries

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example because former president Obama worked to build our economy as well as our employment rate.
The 2017 Economic Report of the President | whitehouse.gov (archives.gov)

# data[].attributes.body
Way back when former president Andrew Jackson was in office he reformed the banks and paid off all of our national debt

# data[].attributes.body
This is how Trump reacted to climate change, health care, trade and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republican Donald John Trump is the 45th president of the United States. His first term is from 2017 to 2021. President Trump's initial campaign in 2016 focused on "making America great again." He focused on gaining the support of voters who felt they had lost the American Dream. With that in mind, Trump's economic policies follow economic nationalism.

This hasn't changed much for the 2020 election, in which he is running against Democratic candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden. Learn more about President Trump's economic policies to better understand what his re-election could mean for the U.S.

Climate Change

Trump's "America First" energy plan started with an announcement in June 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.﻿﻿﻿ The Paris Climate Agreement has 195 signatories that pledged to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions to keep global warming from worsening any more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.﻿﻿﻿

A 2018 study found that temperatures above that level would pass a tipping point. Even if greenhouses gases were reduced, irreversible biogeophysical feedbacks in the climate would create a "Hothouse Earth." For example, the Amazon could become a savanna and Antarctic sea ice would keep melting﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

The U.S. is responsible for about 28% of the world's carbon emissions.﻿﻿ The other signatories can't reach the accord's goal without U.S. participation.

In 2017, Trump also rescinded the Climate Action Plan.﻿﻿﻿ He has allowed more drilling for oil on federal lands.﻿﻿﻿ He weakened the Clean Power Plan which limited carbon emissions at U.S. power plants.﻿﻿﻿

Trump's trade policies seek to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. His first action was the U.S. withdrawal from further negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 11 other countries completed the trade agreement without the U.S.﻿﻿﻿﻿

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the world's largest trade agreement. The Trump administration renegotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, creating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The most significant change is that auto companies must manufacture more parts in the NAFTA trade area.﻿﻿﻿﻿

In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal because Iran was not compliant. The agreement had been signed in 2015 to remove sanctions on Iran's oil exports in exchange for a reduction in the country's nuclear program.﻿﻿﻿

In March 2018, the Trump administration announced a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports.﻿﻿﻿ The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers warned that U.S.-produced steel will cost more once cheap foreign imports are eliminated. The tariffs "raise vehicle prices for all customers, limit consumer choice, and invite retaliatory action by our trading partners."﻿﻿﻿

The administration imposed three tariffs on a total of $250 billion in Chinese imports.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The Federal Reserve estimated these tariffs would cost the average household $419 per year.﻿﻿

In 2019, President Trump imposed a fourth tariff. He raised tariffs to 25% on $200 billion worth of goods.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The Fed estimated that this tariff combined with the previous 2018 tariffs would cost the average household $831 a year.﻿﻿

China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. products.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In December 2019, Trump announced a trade deal between the U.S. and China.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In the deal, China agreed to increase imports of U.S. goods by $200 billion annually and the U.S. agreed to cut tariffs on some goods by half.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Health Care

Trump's health care policies focus on three areas: the COVID-19 pandemic, weakening Obamacare, and reducing drug costs.

On March 13, 2020, Trump proclaimed a national emergency to control the spread of the pandemic. He signed four stimulus laws that provided a record $2.5 trillion to agencies, businesses, and families dealing with the crisis.﻿﻿﻿ ﻿ ﻿ ﻿ ﻿

He launched Operation Warp Speed to develop and distribute safe vaccines and treatments in record time.﻿﻿﻿ He used the Defense Product Act to produce 100,000 ventilators.﻿﻿﻿

The New England Journal of Medicine said the U.S. didn't adequately test nor provide health care workers and the general public with enough protective equipment. The administration delegated disease control to the states instead of launching a national strategy, and states don't possess the same tools as the federal government. As a result, social distancing directives were inconsistent and not uniformly enforced.﻿﻿﻿

During his campaign, Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare.﻿﻿﻿ Although he wasn't successful, Trump launched many initiatives that weakened the law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) tax penalties for those who don't get insurance.﻿ That removed the incentive for healthy people to get coverage. As healthy people drop coverage, health insurance companies may end up with the sickest and costliest to treat, which can increase costs for everyone.﻿

President Trump weakened Medicaid by allowing states to impose work requirements on recipients. The requirement targeted the small percentage of childless single adults to whom the ACA expanded benefits.﻿﻿﻿

Drug Prices

To lower drug prices, Trump signed a 2020 executive order requiring health centers to pass any discounts on insulin and epinephrine to their patients.﻿﻿ Through participating, enhanced Medicare Part D plans, a month's supply of insulin was available for a $35 co-pay.﻿﻿﻿

Trump promised to eliminate the national debt in eight years.﻿﻿﻿ Instead, the debt increased by almost 36% in less than four years. In October 2020, it surpassed $27 trillion.﻿﻿﻿

In a CNN interview, Trump said the U.S. will never default on its debt because it can print the money.﻿﻿﻿ This approach could result in a major financial crisis. Excessive printing of money would create hyperinflation. At the very least, interest rates would rise as creditors lost faith in U.S. Treasurys. At its worst, it would send the dollar into a collapse, creating another Great Depression.

Immigration

Trump's immigration policies focus on restricting legal immigration, completing the wall along the border with Mexico, and reducing the number of refugees and asylum seekers by making the application process difficult.﻿ ﻿ ﻿

Legal Immigration

In 2019, the Trump administration set stricter standards for legal immigration applicants. Those who use or may need public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing aid may not receive their desired immigration status. As a result, it rewards those with higher incomes and private health insurance.﻿﻿﻿

Border Wall

A crucial part of Trump's plan is to complete the wall along the 1,954-mile U.S. border with Mexico. The George W. Bush administration had completed 650 miles.﻿﻿﻿ Trump added another 370 miles, with a goal to complete 450 miles by December 2020.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Asylum Seekers and Refugees

In 2018, the Trump administration increased the requirements for the refugee screening process. As a result, only 22,491 refugees were resettled that year, the lowest figure since 1980.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Trump tried many tactics to reduce the number of asylum seekers. He briefly separated immigrant children from their parents before ending the policy due to popular outcry.﻿﻿﻿ Trump ordered that asylum seekers be returned to Mexico while waiting for the outcome of their hearings. Unfortunately, their return puts them in dangerous living conditions, without access to immigration lawyers. In the camps, there have been reports of rape, torture, and kidnapping, too.﻿﻿﻿

President Trump wants to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first. The "Buy American" program required federal agencies to prefer buying American-made goods and services.﻿﻿﻿

In 2016, Trump said he would create 25 million jobs.﻿﻿﻿ That would have been more jobs than another other president created, beating the more than 18 million jobs created by President Bill Clinton.﻿﻿﻿

To create jobs, President Trump launched the Rebuild America plan.﻿ It outlined $200 billion in spending over 10 years to leverage billions in business spending and would reduce permit process time by eight years.﻿﻿ The plan was not executed.

As a result, Trump created 6.6 million jobs between 2017 and 2019.﻿﻿﻿ This was before the 2020 recession, which cost the economy 20.5 million jobs in April alone.﻿﻿ By September, 12.6 million people were still unemployed.﻿﻿

Other Presidents' Economic Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Donald Trump's Economic Plans and Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republican Donald John Trump is the 45th president of the United States. His first term is from 2017 to 2021. President Trump's initial campaign in 2016 focused on "making America great again." He focused on gaining the support of voters who felt they had lost the American Dream.

# data[].attributes.body
When teddy rosavelt was in office his biggest agenda was to not only chicken out of shooting a bear but also break giant trust funds. Sadly we need a new one because we are going down the hole again

# data[].attributes.body
In Trumps first year in office he signed 117 bills into laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These are the bills Trump signed into law in his first year as President - CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his first year in office, President Donald Trump signed 117 bills into law, but few represented major legislative achievements.

# data[].attributes.body
Dwight Eisenhower was the face of his party for many years. he also campaigned for other candidates.

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how president Clinton boosted the economy

# data[].attributes.body
Former president Donald Trump had 10 veto's throughout his presidency. This is an example because it shows him having a say in the Legislative branch and determining what laws pass.
Presidential Vetoes | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

# data[].attributes.body
Former President Obama endorsed Sleepy Joe.

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Clinton was the first democratic presidential candidate to be elected since 1976

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part of the Southampton Studies in International Policy book series (SSIP)

Keywords

Democratic Party Health Care Reform North American Free Trade Agreement Party Leader Presidential Candidate

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Clinton as a Party Leader: the First Term

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Part of the Southampton Studies in International Policy book series (SSIP) Democratic Party Health Care Reform North American Free Trade Agreement Party Leader Presidential Candidate These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about a commander in the Air Force proposing a strategy. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/644309/stratcom-chief-talks-nuclear-deterrence-modernization/

# data[].attributes.body
This shows that Donald Trump had the greatest GDP in presidential history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump said during the first US presidential debate with Joe Biden that his administration "built the greatest economy in history," a statement he has often made to support his case for a second term in the White House.

The president's record on the economy has been diminished by the devastating fallout of the coronavirus pandemic. Polls, however, tend to remain positive for him when voters are asked who they trust more to create jobs and economic growth.

This sentiment stems from Trump's career as a businessman, an early tax cut he signed as president and a strong stock market, which -- on paper at least -- boosts retirement savings. Regardless, Trump's messaging on the economy is prone to exaggeration and hyperbole.

A screenshot of a tweet taken on September 30, 2020

AFP Fact Check examines the numbers.
Did Trump create the 'greatest economy?'
Gross domestic product and job numbers are the main measures of US economic health. Trump has touted both, as well as chart-topping stock prices, as proof of his success. But his claims are misleading.

In Trump's favor, US unemployment hit a 50-year low of 3.5 percent in December 2019. In January this year, however, before states imposed lockdowns to try and contain the coronavirus, the Labor Department issued an update that was less positive; revised numbers showed job growth slowed significantly in the first three years of Trump's presidency.

Some 6.5 million jobs were added between 2017 and 2019 -- 2.109m, 2.314m (in 2018, Trump's best year) and 2.096m. This compared to more than eight million jobs -- 3.004m, 2.72m and 2.345m -- in the three prior years, under Barack Obama.

The pandemic has upended the job market.

Unemployment peaked at 14.7 percent in April 2020 -- almost seven million Americans filed for government help in one week of March alone. Millions of those lost jobs have since returned.

In August, the unemployment rate was 8.4 percent. The number of jobless people making new claims for benefits remains at a historic high -- 870,000 in the week that ended September 19 -- a sign that a patchy US economic recovery is losing steam.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Growth measured by GDP has not set records under Trump. The best year of his presidency saw a three-percent rise in 2018, compared to 3.1 percent in 2015 under Obama. As recently as 2004 and 2005, under president George W. Bush, the economy grew 3.8 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively.

None of these three presidents have run close to reaching a historic high; the 1950s and 1960s saw years when growth was more than five percent annually.
The stock market
US stocks reached historic highs under Trump. When he entered office on January 20, 2017 the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 19,827.25 points. The index peaked on February 12, 2020, at 29,551.42 points. But as business confidence plunged with the pandemic the Dow Jones cratered and closed at 19,173.98 on March 20, 2020, ending the index's worst week since 2008.

Much of that ground was later recovered. On September 29, hours before the first presidential debate, the Dow Jones closed at 27,452.66.

The stock market, sensing an infusion of economic stimulus cash following Biden's November 3, 2020 election victory, surged again. The Dow Jones closed at 30,930.52 on January 19, 2021, Trump's last day in office.

When percentage growth during Trump's tenure is compared with Obama's, however, a very different picture emerges.

Obama inherited a market in the depths of the global financial crisis. The Dow Jones was at 7,949.09 points. By the start of his second term in 2013 it had risen to 13,649.70. When he left office the index had registered an overall cumulative growth of 148.3 percent over eight years.

In Trump's single term as president the Dow Jones grew 56 percent.

This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Clickhere for more. This story was updated on January 19, 2021, to add the Dow Jones Industrial Average close.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump's economic record as US president

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The president's record on the economy has been diminished by the devastating fallout of the coronavirus pandemic. Polls, however, tend to remain positive for him when voters are asked who they trust more to create jobs and economic growth.

# data[].attributes.body
Former president Obama is an example because he helped campaign for president Biden.
Obama campaigns for his former vice president in Philadelphia, but can he push Biden over the finish line? | The Independent

# data[].attributes.body
Obama (last name unknown) was able to bolster the Democratic Party and change the tide away from the republicans

# data[].attributes.body
This shows the president declaring war

# data[].attributes.body
Harry s. Truman is a example because he not only fought in ww1 but he was president when we won ww2

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/951203109/trump-and-the-military-what-an-erratic-commander-in-chief-leaves-behind

It’s talking about how trump helped all the troops.

# data[].attributes.body
This is when Trump was trying to end the wars in the east.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump campaigned hard on military issues.

He vowed to bring "endless wars" to a close, "rebuild" the fighting forces and compel allies to pay their fair share, saying the U.S. would no longer be "suckers."

That message resonated among voters and helped propel him to the White House in the 2016 election. Among troops, he seemed to enjoy fairly strong support. A Military Times poll showed that 46% had a favorable view of him at the start of his term, 10 points higher than President Barack Obama had in January 2017.

Still, Trump was unable to end those endless wars. He leaves a military that is still fighting and advising in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, though in smaller numbers.

He provided a significant budget boost, made the troops more ready and created a U.S. Space Force. NATO members did end up paying more for their defense - for many years a source of official Washington grumbling - though there were fractures within the alliance over Trump's abrasive nature and abrupt decisions, such as withdrawing troops from Afghanistan without consulting NATO leaders.

But in the end, several analysts say, what stands out is the damage Trump did to civilian-military relations. He used troops - and senior officers - in clearly political events, at times referring to "my generals." One senior officer, who is not authorized to speak publicly, recalled that in his dealings with Trump, the president was surprised to learn the military is apolitical.

Moreover, Trump brushed aside a military justice system that found service members guilty of war crimes, granting them pardons.

Trump "was constantly undermining civilian-military relations around the bounds of what is acceptable behavior," says Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor who focuses on those relations. "This, combined with the fact that he has a tin ear for all things in the civil-military domain, means that Trump did lots of damage to this crucial pillar of the republic."

Aaron O'Connell agrees. He was a Marine Corps officer who served in Afghanistan and in Obama's National Security Council.

The "biggest thing," says O'Connell, who now teaches at the University of Texas, is Trump's pardons for Navy Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher and Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance. Both were convicted of war crimes by the military.

"They were not close calls on the merits," O'Connell says. "Why get involved with this? It only hurts the military, hurts the rule of law and hurts the image of the U.S. as a law-abiding nation."

Trump also tested civilian-military relations by urging that active-duty troops be used to quell street protests following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police last year.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper strongly and publicly opposed such a move, saying it was a job for local police and possibly the National Guard. Trump soured on Esper after that, and their relationship never survived. Months later, Esper was "terminated" by Trump in a tweet.

"Trump's willingness to use the military against legitimate protests in America [last] year stands out as particularly significant and damaging," says Carter Malkasian, a former senior Defense Department official. "The backlash was thankfully great, so hopefully our institutions have emerged undamaged."

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, acknowledged he is no "Trump fan," seeing him as "an extremely dangerous commander in chief" and citing his saber rattling and his threatening a war with North Korea.

But O'Hanlon sees Trump's overall legacy as relatively positive.

"The increase in budgets, readiness levels and modernization efforts will be sort of like a 'mini Reagan period,' " O'Hanlon says. "Fifteen years of war and several years of budgetary dysfunction had left things frayed."

Brad Bowman, a defense analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, credits the Trump administration with prioritizing military research and development with the largest budget increase ever, saying the Pentagon recognized the growing technological prowess of China and Russia as well as the changing character of warfare.

"To its credit," says Bowman, "the Trump administration explicitly shifted the Pentagon's focus to great-power competition," meaning China and Russia, no longer making anti-terrorism efforts a priority. That came through a National Defense Strategy crafted by Trump's first defense secretary, James Mattis.

Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute says the three-year "Trump bump" defense increases were "significant and helpful, particularly to restoring readiness."

"But not nearly enough to completely rebuild the military," she says, "as he claimed in his State of the Union address [last] year."

Eaglen also says that despite the increases, Trump's souring on those who disagreed with him - including Defense Secretaries Mattis and Esper - was one of the big reasons Trump could not oversee the buildup of the Navy during his tenure, a buildup that would have reflected the focus on Asia and the growing threat from China.

She also faults Trump for using Pentagon money to build his wall on the border with Mexico. Such action, Eaglen says, "sets up the budget to be raided by any future president for any self-declared 'emergency.' "

Todd Harrison, a budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed those concerns, calling the shift in funds for the wall one of the "worst legacies" of the Trump years.

"I think Congress will need to rethink many of the provisions it routinely puts into law," says Harrison, "that allow the president to reallocate certain types of funding in a crisis without prior approval from Congress."

Despite Trump's talk of building up the military, some analysts say he's overstating his efforts.

"Obama in his first term spent more than [Trump] did," says Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress. Obama spent $3.3 trillion on the military in his first term, Korb points out, compared with $2.9 trillion during Trump's term.

Moreover, Trump's claim of a military that was lagging under Obama was not the case, Korb says. Back in the summer of 2016, retired Gen. David Petraeus and O'Hanlon wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled, " The Myth of a U.S. Military 'Readiness' Crisis," saying there were areas of concern but no crisis.

One retired senior officer who served under three presidents and who asked not to be identified because he still works in government says in the end Trump was someone who in the national security realm was chaotic and transactional, often tweeting policy changes.

Such tweets announced that all troops would be withdrawn from Syria - a decision that angered both U.S. Special Forces on the ground and their Kurdish partners fighting the remnants of the Islamic State. In the end, Trump was convinced by military leaders to keep hundreds of troops to continue the fight - and protect oil fields.

"No one could trust that what he said was true - the old 'your word is your bond' didn't hold true with the president," the retired officer adds.

On Afghanistan, Trump was successful in getting a U.S.-Taliban peace deal that would mean the withdrawal of all American troops by this spring, as long as the Taliban agreed to abide by certain conditions, such as breaking with al-Qaida and not attacking cities. That would mean America's longest war - at 19 years - would come to an end.

"It's hard to see how the February 2020 agreement with the Taliban would have come about without Trump's drive to get out, not to detract from [U.S. negotiator] Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's diplomatic skills," says Malkasian, the former Pentagon official.

Korb, of the Center for American Progress, said removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan made sense - but not the way it was handled by the administration.

Trump ordered reductions in U.S. troop levels from 4,500 to 2,500, even though military officials wanted to maintain that higher number into 2021. Military officials privately acknowledged that the Taliban had failed to meet the conditions called for in the agreement, but it appeared Trump was intent on maintaining a campaign pledge to bring the troops home.

Both Afghan officials and NATO allies were caught off guard by the reductions. And when acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller made the troop cut announcement in the Pentagon briefing room, he swiftly left without answering any questions.

Trump's constant policy by tweet and abrupt decisions, with little deliberation among officials and allies, left others to handle the fallout.

"Military and some civilian leaders have been in constant damage control over the last four years," the retired officer says. "The old 'cleanup on aisle 4, then 6, then 8.' "

And in the end, there were signs that those within the military were souring on Trump.

A Military Times poll taken before the election showed that earlier 46% approval rating for Trump dropping by 8 points.

Retired Adm. James Stavridis, the former top officer at NATO, says Trump will have "a very mixed legacy." He was a strong advocate for funding the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, but his crude language, his pardoning of war criminals and his sudden removal of troops will be remembered negatively.

"Strategically, the military will remember him as a very political commander in chief who basically wanted to pull back from our overseas commitments and international alliances - an approach not well regarded by many in the force," Stavridis says. "To the degree there was a 'Trump Doctrine,' it seemed to be withdraw and come home."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump And The Military: What An Erratic Commander In Chief Leaves Behind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Military and some civilian leaders have been in constant damage control over the last four years. The old 'cleanup on aisle 4, then 6, then 8,' " a retired officer says of President Trump's tenure.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry S Truman is an example of commander in chief. he was able to make better decisions for the military, because he had served in World War 1.

# data[].attributes.body
Justin t. Is a example of a head of state.

# data[].attributes.body
This talks about former president Obama addressing hurricane sandy. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi6w8yRoo_vAhURi6wKHZ4mBisQFjAAegQIAhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fobamawhitehouse.archives.gov%2Fblog%2F2012%2F10%2F28%2Fpresident-obama-discusses-hurricane-sandy&usg=AOvVaw2fjOh3BwVf_7fUAwYkWlkS

# data[].attributes.body
President Bush throwing out the first pitch of a baseball game after 9/11 is an example because he did it to bring people together after the attack.

# data[].attributes.body
Britannica.com

This article is talking about how Queen Elizabeth II played a role as head of state by meeting with presidents before a general election.

# data[].attributes.body
Obama throws out the first pitch at the World Series.

# data[].attributes.body
This is showing the president throwing the first pitch at a game

# data[].attributes.body
Bay of Pigs Invasion is an example because former president Kennedy sent troops to Cuba to strip Fidel Castro of his power.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows Donald trump is losing his agenda setting

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how Donald trumps party grows more

# data[].attributes.body
Queen Elizabeth is an example

# data[].attributes.body
This shows Trump making a plan for trying to help the us and cutting down trade with other countries so we use more of our own things

# data[].attributes.body
This shows trump giving a speech and helping his party

# data[].attributes.body
This shows trump meeting with other presidents of the world

# data[].attributes.body
This says that trumps wants to unite the civilized world against Islamic terrorism

# data[].attributes.body
This shows trump working with climate change

# data[].attributes.body
This is showing trump talking to and supporting his troops

# data[].attributes.body
https://rolesofthepresident.weebly.com/obomas-roles.html

This is an example because it is talking about how Obama fulfills the role of being Chief Executive, and how he is meeting with all the leaders, and how all of his meetings have a meaning and all of them always turn out good even if they run past scheduled time.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because he needs the "advice and consent" of the Senate in most major diplomatic matters, but over the years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roles of Chief Diplomats

In many democracies, the chief diplomat is the elected president. In 2018, in the U.S., that's Donald Trump. Like Trump, however, most U.S. presidents come into office without having a background in diplomacy or in the diplomatic corps. Although presidents set diplomatic policy in its broadest terms, they often hand over some of their diplomatic functions to their Secretaries of State; many Secretaries of State have more diplomatic experience than the presidents they've served. For every country the U.S. recognizes, it also assigns an ambassador, who functions as the U.S.'s chief diplomat in residence.

Presidential Diplomatic Powers

The president has constitutionally granted powers to recognize foreign governments and to make certain bilateral or multilateral treaties. In theory, he needs the "advice and consent" of the Senate in most major diplomatic matters, but over the years, and beginning as early as Kennedy, presidents have regularly abrogated the requirement, sometimes to a degree that critics to refer to as "the Imperial Presidency."

The Function of the Secretary of State

Often, Secretaries of State have more experience in Washington than the presidents they serve. In addition to being the President's principal foreign policy advisor, they often prepare the groundwork for negotiations with foreign countries; they represent the U.S. at major diplomatic conferences; they negotiate treaties and agreements; and, as the Department of State's Chief Foreign Service Officer, they recommend ambassadorial appointments, administer the Department of State and supervise the U.S. Foreign Service - the country's boots on the ground in the conduct of international diplomacy.

Foreign Ambassadors

Ambassadors are appointed by the president to represent the country in its relations with individual nations. Often, they are persons of prominence in civilian life. Anna Wintour, the long-time editor of Vogue Magazine and a powerhouse in international fashion circles for decades, was considered by President Trump for the prestigious ambassadorship to Great Britain. Even more than celebrity, however, becoming a U.S. ambassador requires being wealthy. The ambassadorial salary maxes out at under $200,000; fulfilling the ambassadorial obligations for a developed country such as France, however, might require annual expenditures of several multiples of that amount.

Although ambassadors are often diplomatic figureheads in terms both of overall policy-making (which remains the purview of the President and his Secretary of State), and the nuts and bolts of diplomatic tactics, the difference between a great ambassador and a mediocre ambassador can really influence relations between the two countries. Benjamin Franklin, the first U.S. ambassador to France, successfully drove French foreign policy toward the emergent U.S. and away from Great Britain. At the other extreme, some U.S. ambassadors to Latin American countries, Bolivia, for example, have been expelled for engaging in activities that their host countries perceived as being insurrectionary.

Foreign Service Officers

In general, a lot of the institutional wisdom that enables effective foreign policy on the ground is embodied in about 3,000 foreign service officers, as a part of the State Department workforce. The State Department gives this rather bland description of a foreign officer's duties: "to promote peace, support prosperity, and protect American citizens while advancing the interests of the U.S. abroad." In practice, carrying out these duties reflects the priorities of the President and his Secretary of State and, to a lesser degree, the U.S. ambassador in the country where the officer is serving. In the Obama era, for instance, state department officers often investigated human rights issues in the host country or they worked to solve problems when citizens of the country they represented tried to immigrate to the U.S. In the Trump era, foreign service officers may be more engaged in facilitating American business abroad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2018, the chief diplomat in the U.S is President, Donald Trump. Presidents set policy in the broadest terms, but often hand over many diplomatic functions to the U.S. Secretary of State. For every country the U.S. recognizes, it assigns an ambassador, the U.S.'s chief diplomat in residence.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because President Donald Trump has wasted little time in taking advantage of this privilege.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump signs a flurry of orders as he lays out his presidential agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because he is making the economy better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republican Donald John Trump is the 45th president of the United States. His first term is from 2017 to 2021. President Trump's initial campaign in 2016 focused on "making America great again." He focused on gaining the support of voters who felt they had lost the American Dream. With that in mind, Trump's economic policies follow economic nationalism.

This hasn't changed much for the 2020 election, in which he is running against Democratic candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden. Learn more about President Trump's economic policies to better understand what his re-election could mean for the U.S.

Climate Change

Trump's "America First" energy plan started with an announcement in June 2017 that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.﻿﻿﻿ The Paris Climate Agreement has 195 signatories that pledged to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions to keep global warming from worsening any more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.﻿﻿﻿

A 2018 study found that temperatures above that level would pass a tipping point. Even if greenhouses gases were reduced, irreversible biogeophysical feedbacks in the climate would create a "Hothouse Earth." For example, the Amazon could become a savanna and Antarctic sea ice would keep melting﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

The U.S. is responsible for about 28% of the world's carbon emissions.﻿﻿ The other signatories can't reach the accord's goal without U.S. participation.

In 2017, Trump also rescinded the Climate Action Plan.﻿﻿﻿ He has allowed more drilling for oil on federal lands.﻿﻿﻿ He weakened the Clean Power Plan which limited carbon emissions at U.S. power plants.﻿﻿﻿

Trump's trade policies seek to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. His first action was the U.S. withdrawal from further negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 11 other countries completed the trade agreement without the U.S.﻿﻿﻿﻿

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the world's largest trade agreement. The Trump administration renegotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, creating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The most significant change is that auto companies must manufacture more parts in the NAFTA trade area.﻿﻿﻿﻿

In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal because Iran was not compliant. The agreement had been signed in 2015 to remove sanctions on Iran's oil exports in exchange for a reduction in the country's nuclear program.﻿﻿﻿

In March 2018, the Trump administration announced a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports.﻿﻿﻿ The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers warned that U.S.-produced steel will cost more once cheap foreign imports are eliminated. The tariffs "raise vehicle prices for all customers, limit consumer choice, and invite retaliatory action by our trading partners."﻿﻿﻿

The administration imposed three tariffs on a total of $250 billion in Chinese imports.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The Federal Reserve estimated these tariffs would cost the average household $419 per year.﻿﻿

In 2019, President Trump imposed a fourth tariff. He raised tariffs to 25% on $200 billion worth of goods.﻿﻿﻿﻿ The Fed estimated that this tariff combined with the previous 2018 tariffs would cost the average household $831 a year.﻿﻿

China retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. products.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In December 2019, Trump announced a trade deal between the U.S. and China.﻿﻿﻿﻿ In the deal, China agreed to increase imports of U.S. goods by $200 billion annually and the U.S. agreed to cut tariffs on some goods by half.﻿﻿﻿﻿

Health Care

Trump's health care policies focus on three areas: the COVID-19 pandemic, weakening Obamacare, and reducing drug costs.

On March 13, 2020, Trump proclaimed a national emergency to control the spread of the pandemic. He signed four stimulus laws that provided a record $2.5 trillion to agencies, businesses, and families dealing with the crisis.﻿﻿﻿ ﻿ ﻿ ﻿ ﻿

He launched Operation Warp Speed to develop and distribute safe vaccines and treatments in record time.﻿﻿﻿ He used the Defense Product Act to produce 100,000 ventilators.﻿﻿﻿

The New England Journal of Medicine said the U.S. didn't adequately test nor provide health care workers and the general public with enough protective equipment. The administration delegated disease control to the states instead of launching a national strategy, and states don't possess the same tools as the federal government. As a result, social distancing directives were inconsistent and not uniformly enforced.﻿﻿﻿

During his campaign, Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare.﻿﻿﻿ Although he wasn't successful, Trump launched many initiatives that weakened the law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) tax penalties for those who don't get insurance.﻿ That removed the incentive for healthy people to get coverage. As healthy people drop coverage, health insurance companies may end up with the sickest and costliest to treat, which can increase costs for everyone.﻿

President Trump weakened Medicaid by allowing states to impose work requirements on recipients. The requirement targeted the small percentage of childless single adults to whom the ACA expanded benefits.﻿﻿﻿

Drug Prices

To lower drug prices, Trump signed a 2020 executive order requiring health centers to pass any discounts on insulin and epinephrine to their patients.﻿﻿ Through participating, enhanced Medicare Part D plans, a month's supply of insulin was available for a $35 co-pay.﻿﻿﻿

Trump promised to eliminate the national debt in eight years.﻿﻿﻿ Instead, the debt increased by almost 36% in less than four years. In October 2020, it surpassed $27 trillion.﻿﻿﻿

In a CNN interview, Trump said the U.S. will never default on its debt because it can print the money.﻿﻿﻿ This approach could result in a major financial crisis. Excessive printing of money would create hyperinflation. At the very least, interest rates would rise as creditors lost faith in U.S. Treasurys. At its worst, it would send the dollar into a collapse, creating another Great Depression.

Immigration

Trump's immigration policies focus on restricting legal immigration, completing the wall along the border with Mexico, and reducing the number of refugees and asylum seekers by making the application process difficult.﻿ ﻿ ﻿

Legal Immigration

In 2019, the Trump administration set stricter standards for legal immigration applicants. Those who use or may need public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, or housing aid may not receive their desired immigration status. As a result, it rewards those with higher incomes and private health insurance.﻿﻿﻿

Border Wall

A crucial part of Trump's plan is to complete the wall along the 1,954-mile U.S. border with Mexico. The George W. Bush administration had completed 650 miles.﻿﻿﻿ Trump added another 370 miles, with a goal to complete 450 miles by December 2020.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Asylum Seekers and Refugees

In 2018, the Trump administration increased the requirements for the refugee screening process. As a result, only 22,491 refugees were resettled that year, the lowest figure since 1980.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Trump tried many tactics to reduce the number of asylum seekers. He briefly separated immigrant children from their parents before ending the policy due to popular outcry.﻿﻿﻿ Trump ordered that asylum seekers be returned to Mexico while waiting for the outcome of their hearings. Unfortunately, their return puts them in dangerous living conditions, without access to immigration lawyers. In the camps, there have been reports of rape, torture, and kidnapping, too.﻿﻿﻿

President Trump wants to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first. The "Buy American" program required federal agencies to prefer buying American-made goods and services.﻿﻿﻿

In 2016, Trump said he would create 25 million jobs.﻿﻿﻿ That would have been more jobs than another other president created, beating the more than 18 million jobs created by President Bill Clinton.﻿﻿﻿

To create jobs, President Trump launched the Rebuild America plan.﻿ It outlined $200 billion in spending over 10 years to leverage billions in business spending and would reduce permit process time by eight years.﻿﻿ The plan was not executed.

As a result, Trump created 6.6 million jobs between 2017 and 2019.﻿﻿﻿ This was before the 2020 recession, which cost the economy 20.5 million jobs in April alone.﻿﻿ By September, 12.6 million people were still unemployed.﻿﻿

Other Presidents' Economic Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Donald Trump's Economic Plans and Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republican Donald John Trump is the 45th president of the United States. His first term is from 2017 to 2021. President Trump's initial campaign in 2016 focused on "making America great again." He focused on gaining the support of voters who felt they had lost the American Dream.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because trump is setting up stuff.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example of how trump helped his party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The Party Is Much Bigger Now.' Donald Trump on His Effect on the GOP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Donald Trump argued that he has expanded the Republican Party to be more of a home for "the working man and woman."

# data[].attributes.body
Autumn

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example because he meet the Queen of England.

# data[].attributes.body
this explains how jimmy carter organized a peace settlement , which was a huge accomplishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Israel and Egypt did not make good neighbors. In the three decades following modern Israel's founding in 1948, the two countries waged four major wars against one another, plus a so-called War of Attrition in which they traded artillery fire along the Suez Canal.

Glimmers of hope began to appear, however, around the time Jimmy Carter took office in 1977. From day one of his presidency, Carter showed great interest in the conflict, spending much time and political capital cajoling Egypt's and Israel's leaders toward what he believed would be a mutually beneficial deal.

By the summer of 1978, with peace tantalizingly close, negotiations stalled. To break the impasse, Carter invited Egypt's President Anwar el-Sadat and Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin to a summit at Camp David, sequestering them for nearly two weeks as the terms of a peace agreement were painstakingly hammered out.

Since then, Israel and Egypt have not once come to blows, even as tensions between them remain high.

Israel and Egypt Head to the Negotiating Table

David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

As president, the Georgia-born Carter initially tried to incorporate all the warring Middle Eastern parties in negotiations, including Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians. He likewise wanted to bring in the Soviet Union.

"For Carter a comprehensive peace agreement was not just the right thing to do, but he believed it would improve U.S.-Soviet relations and strengthen the U.S. position in the Arab world," says Craig Daigle, an associate professor of history at the City College of New York, who is currently writing a book entitled Camp David and the Remaking of the Middle East.

It soon became clear, however, that Egypt and Israel preferred dealing solely with each other, and Carter adjusted his expectations accordingly. "One of Carter's achievements is that he was smart enough...and agile enough to support what Sadat and Begin were doing in essentially a bilateral process," Daniel C. Kurtzer, a professor of Middle East policy studies at Princeton University and a former U.S. ambassador to both Egypt and Israel, tells HISTORY.

In what's been called a "psychological breakthrough," Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel in November 1977, touring Jerusalem and addressing Israel's parliament. "You want to live with us in this part of the world," Sadat declared. "In all sincerity, I tell you, we welcome you among us, with full security and safety."

Begin reciprocated by flying to Ismailia, Egypt, where peace talks got underway. Their historic enmity notwithstanding, the two countries actually faced similar national security challenges. "[They] had a shared interest in fighting the rise of Islamic radicalism," Daigle points out, plus "they both wanted to prevent Soviet intervention in the region, and they both sought U.S. weapons and financial assistance."

Both Sadat and Begin also felt themselves surrounded by enemies. In Begin's case, not one of the surrounding Arab countries even recognized Israel's existence. Sadat, on the other hand, was coping with attempts by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi to topple him from power. Moreover, Daigle explains, Sadat "feared that the Ethiopian Revolution would spill into neighboring Sudan, which could bring a hostile government to power there and threaten the supply of Nile River water, the lifeblood of the Egyptian economy."

The Idea for a Summit Forms

Despite high hopes triggered by Sadat's visit, a negotiating breakthrough proved elusive. "The Israeli approach was very legalistic and focused on details," Kurtzer says, "while the Egyptian approach was focused on the big picture."

Complicating matters was a devastating terrorist attack along Israel's Coastal Highway, followed by a bloody Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon, a stronghold for Palestinian militants.

As frustrations mounted, Carter, who stayed involved in negotiations every step of the way, looked to stop the talks from collapsing. Taking the advice of his wife, Rosalynn, he eventually settled on inviting Sadat and Begin to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, believing the bucolic setting might soften the acrimony on all sides.

This strategy was hardly risk free. Carter's popularity was suffering from rising inflation, unemployment and energy prices, and his advisers worried that a failure at Camp David would make him look weak. Even his vice president, Walter Mondale, warned against it, telling him, "If you fail we're done. We will sap our stature as national leaders."

The Camp David Accords

Moshe Milner/GPO/Getty Images

Undeterred, Carter pushed ahead, scheduling the Camp David summit for September 5, 1978. From the very beginning, Sadat and Begin clashed, wasting no opportunity to dredge up past grievances and showcasing their very different personalities. "After just a couple of days," Kurtzer says, "Sadat and Begin basically didn't want to talk to each other anymore."

Begin, whose conservative Likud Party historically opposed trading land for peace, was reportedly reluctant to even use the word "Palestinian," and he insisted on calling the West Bank by its biblical names: Judea and Samaria. With tempers flaring, the summit nearly collapsed on several occasions.

Carter realized that the two leaders would never come to terms on their own and that he needed to take on a more active role. In addition to drawing up a U.S. peace proposal, which would undergo many draft revisions, he threatened to withdraw U.S. aid and friendship, which both countries desperately needed.

At one point, Carter took Sadat and Begin to the site of the Battle of Gettysburg, an implicit warning about what could happen should negotiations fail. Mostly, though, he began meeting with the Israeli and Egyptian teams separately. Taking his own copious notes, he would rush back and forth between the two camps, often negotiating far into the night.

Carter also employed a strategy of leaving the two leaders out of it as much as possible, preferring instead to deal with certain advisers and only coming to Begin and Sadat for final approval.

For 13 days, far longer than he had expected the summit to last, Carter put aside his other presidential duties to work on Middle Eastern peace. His efforts came to fruition on September 17, when he, Sadat and Begin signed two framework agreements at the White House.

One called for Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, which it had conquered from Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War, in exchange for the establishment of full diplomatic relations, whereas the other, more vaguely worded document, called for a "self-governing" Palestinian authority in the West Bank and Gaza, along with recognition of "the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."

A Full Peace Proves Elusive

Though met with great fanfare-Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, and Carter would get his own Nobel Prize years later-the Camp David Accords did not bring an immediate end to hostilities. Perhaps not surprisingly, subsequent negotiations between Israel and Egypt proved difficult, prompting Carter to visit both countries in March 1979 to tackle remaining differences. (It would, for example, take years of international arbitration to resolve a boundary dispute.)

Finally, on March 26, 1979, Egypt and Israel signed an official peace treaty. "Let history record that deep and ancient antagonism can be settled without bloodshed and without staggering waste of precious lives," Carter said at the time.

The treaty has held ever since and includes provisions that the United States provide both countries with billions of dollars in military and economic aid. In his book, Thirteen Days in September: The Dramatic Story of the Struggle for Peace, author Lawrence Wright credits Carter's "unswerving commitment" to resolving the conflict. "Egypt and Israel simply could not make peace without the presence of a trusted third party," Wright states.

As Wright notes, though, unresolved issues abound, particularly regarding the Palestinians, who did not participate in the Camp David summit. "While Carter had good intentions in wanting to help the Palestinians, his policies and support for the Camp David agreements actually set them back quite a bit," Daigle says, pointing out that, among other things, he never backed the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

In 1980, Carter was crushed in his bid for re-election. Begin, meanwhile, refused to dismantle Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza-as he had reluctantly done in the Sinai-and, in fact, promoted their construction, thereby complicating future dealings with the Palestinians. For his part, Sadat was ostracized by much of the Arab world for reaching out to Israel and was assassinated in 1981 by Islamic militants.

Although the peace these three leaders forged at Camp David was "partial and incomplete," Wright writes, it "nonetheless stands as one of the great diplomatic triumphs of the 20th century."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Jimmy Carter Brokered a Hard-Won Peace Deal Between Israel and Egypt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Israel and Egypt did not make good neighbors. In the three decades following modern Israel's founding in 1948, the two countries waged four major wars against one another, plus a so-called War of Attrition in which they traded artillery fire along the Suez Canal.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because it talks about how carter proposed a taxation plan.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because it shows trumps roles in the economy and the things he did, this article holds true responsible for the good things in economy while in office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Claim: President Trump says he built the greatest ever US economy prior to the coronavirus outbreak and that now it's recovering faster than ever.

Reality Check verdict: It's true the economy was doing well prior to the pandemic - continuing a trend which began during the Obama administration - but there have been periods when it was much stronger.

The US economy was then hit by the biggest economic contraction ever recorded as a result of the pandemic. It has since bounced back strongly, but hasn't regained all its losses.

We've looked at the economy in six key charts.

The latest numbers show economic output surged by an annualised 33% in the third quarter of 2020, following a record fall as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic.

The recovery, although strong, hasn't yet brought economic activity back to pre-pandemic levels.

Mr Trump has said the recent recovery in growth is "the biggest in the history of our country by almost triple...that's bigger than any nation".

Yes, it is the biggest quarterly increase, but by more like double - outdoing the previous peak of 16.7% in the first quarter of 1950.

However, Mr Trump's comparison with other countries isn't right. From July to September this year, the economy grew by 7.4% in the US (33.1% is the annualised figure). This is less than Germany, Italy and the eurozone as a whole.

If you look at economic growth from the start of the pandemic to the present, the US has done better than Europe but "worse that China and some other Asian economies" such as South Korea, says Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics.

During his first three years in office, President Trump oversaw an annual average growth of 2.5%.

The last three years of the Obama administration saw a similar level of growth (2.3%).

Prior to the recent post-pandemic fluctuations, if we look at growth rates as far back as comparable records allow, it's clear there have been frequent periods when the growth of GDP - the value of goods and services in the economy - has been significantly higher than under President Trump.

In the early 1950s, for example, annualised GDP growth rate periodically exceeded 10%.

President Trump often highlights the rising value of US financial markets as a measure of success - in particular the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The Dow is a measure of the performance of 30 large companies listed on US stock exchanges, and it reached record highs at the start of this year.

It then crashed as markets reacted to the coronavirus pandemic, wiping out all the gains made since President Trump took office.

But the financial markets have been remarkably resilient and have largely recovered back to near pre-pandemic levels, although there have been recent wobbles.

Prior to the pandemic, President Trump claims to have delivered the lowest unemployment rate in half a century.

This is true. In February this year, the rate stood at 3.5%, the lowest for more than 50 years.

However, the Obama administration added more jobs to the economy, comparing similar time-frames.

Under Trump, in the three years prior to the pandemic, there were an additional 6.4 million jobs. In the last three years under Obama, seven million jobs were added.

As in many parts of the world, coronavirus lockdown measures very quickly led to soaring levels of unemployment in the US.

The rate jumped to 14.7% in April, the highest level since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The US Labor Department says more than 20 million people lost their jobs, eliminating a decade of employment gains in a single month.

Since the peak in April, unemployment has fallen back significantly to 7.9% in September.

Real wages (adjusted for inflation) grew throughout Trump's first three years in office - continuing a steady upward trend which began during the first of President Obama's two terms.

This growth reached 2.1% per annum in February 2019, prior to the pandemic.

This is lower than the real wage increases of up to 2.4% that President Obama oversaw in 2015

The rapid increase in average earnings then seen at the start of the coronavirus lockdown were largely as a consequence of the lowest-earning Americans losing their jobs at a disproportionate rate, following the economic downturn.

With lower wage-earners out of jobs, the average hourly wage data skewed sharply upwards.

Average wages have since started to fall back, as economic restrictions have eased.

President Trump claimed in 2019 that he had delivered "the largest poverty reduction under any president in history".

In 2019, around 4.2 million fewer people were living in poverty in the US compared with the previous year, according to official data.

This is a significant drop, but not the largest reduction in history.

The US Census Bureau has published this poverty data since the end of the 1950s. The largest fall in a single year was in 1966 during the administration of President Lyndon B Johnson, when almost 4.7 million people were lifted out of poverty.

The financial crisis of 2007/8 and subsequent economic downturn saw sharp rises in poverty, which only began to decline from around 2015 during the Obama administration, with a growing economy and rising levels of employment.

The continued strength of the economy under President Trump (at least until the pandemic hit) has been matched by a continuing fall in the poverty rate.

This overall national figure masks wide variations across regions and ethnic groups in America. In 2019, while 10.5% of the population was defined as living in poverty, the figure for black Americans was 18.8 and for white (non-Hispanic) Americans it was 7.3%.

Figures for 2020 are not yet available, but are expected to show a sharp rise in poverty as a result of the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US 2020 election: The economy under Trump in six charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Claim: President Trump says he built the greatest ever US economy prior to the coronavirus outbreak and that now it's recovering faster than ever. Reality Check verdict: It's true the economy was doing well prior to the pandemic - continuing a trend which began during the Obama administration - but there have been periods when it was much stronger.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because it gives a list of times that presidents have vetoed proposed bills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of United States presidential vetoes - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Occasionally, a President either publicly or privately threatens Congress with a veto to influence the content or passage of legislation. There is no record of what constitutes a "veto threat", or how many have been made over the years, but it has become a staple of Presidential politics and a sometimes effective way of shaping policy.

# data[].attributes.body
this article explains the way  Barack Obama helped biden gain attention from others. this shows why biden brought up obama so much, to gain support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The arena politician won't be appearing in an arena anytime soon. He has other plans.

Ron Haviv / VII / Redux

Ashton Kutcher was at a tech conference in Salt Lake City in March last year to promote Community, a new mass-texting app he'd just invested in. The trip worked out better than Kutcher had hoped: Barack Obama was standing backstage, waiting to make a paid appearance. The former sitcom star made his way over, and Obama's Secret Service detail let him through. Kutcher made his pitch.

In response, Obama said what he often does when presented with an idea like Kutcher's: He promised to look into it, and that his staff would follow up. Maybe, they said. Relying on texting to get people to hear from Obama didn't seem like such an enticing idea in 2019.

That conversation changed once the coronavirus pandemic hit. When he couldn't be in a room with voters and they couldn't be in a room with him, being able to reach tens of thousands of people at once suddenly seemed more important. Obama's aides registered a new Chicago-area phone number to use, announced that he had joined Community, and watched followers stream in at a rate of 1,000 per minute. Within a few days, more than 350,000 people had signed up for texts and a voicemail. Relying on texting all but guarantees that users won't scroll past what he said, as they might with a Facebook post or tweet-and ensures that they won't encounter the often-toxic comments that tend to accompany politics chatter on social media. Plus, to join, people registered with names, phone numbers, and email addresses. Obama can keep after them to vote-and hang on to their data after the election, too.

Recommended Reading

Obama is alarmed about Trump's presidency, and about the threats Trump has been making about not transferring power if he loses. Obama is determined to end both. But getting involved has been tricky.
Read: Obama's 2016 warning: Trump is a 'fascist'
Obama is an arena politician, strongest in front of a crowd cheering for him, but he won't be anywhere near an arena between now and November 3. So far, the closest that Obama has come to traveling to a swing state is spending much of the summer in Martha's Vineyard. But that's about to change. For the last two weeks of the campaign, Obama will hit the trail, potentially adding joint appearances with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. He'll be attending "drive-in" rallies, which have become a Biden campaign pandemic favorite, letting voters see him from within the bubble of their own cars. Obama's focus will be on states with early voting, hoping to get those cars to drive right to the polls, and promoting Democrats' recent shift to emphasizing showing up in person early-rather than relying on the mail-to bank as many votes as possible before Election Day.

"He's doing enough for our campaign," Biden told reporters on Tuesday, letting the plans slip, after weeks of his aides trying to figure out what campaigning requests they'd make of Obama. "He'll be out on the trail."

Still, many Democrats are seeing less of their most popular leader than they were four years ago. Obama's Democratic National Convention speech in August was a dark, panicked indictment of Donald Trump's presidency, but he hasn't been on national television or in public much since. He likes to pick his moments-to maximize his impact when he does speak, and to avoid triggering the president into a distracting tweetstorm and potentially overshadowing his Democratic successors. He's sticking to that strategy. And he had personal commitments: He needed to polish the first volume of his memoir, due out two weeks after the election, and was enjoying an extended vacation that stretched into September.

Obama's schedule is also a reflection of how hard it is to reach voters while also modeling safe behavior. Obama wants to adhere to the Biden campaign's policy that no one at their events should risk getting sick. The former president has been shocked by Trump's reckless approach to health precautions, and is determined not to get sick himself.

Sure, Obama's not popping up on Meet the Press. But he's still being seen by the millions of voters who tend to respond most strongly to him. His endorsement video for Biden generated 26 million views and raised $2.5 million. He popped up on Twitch, the video-game-streaming platform, ahead of Biden's convention speech, and at the end of September, he recorded a video for the Black-owned media company the Shade Room, which reaches 25 million "roommates," to push early voting. His voter-registration message on Snapchat generated 57 million impressions in two weeks and has prompted more than 20,000 new registrations so far, continually popping up on phones. An early-vote message on ATTN received 12 million views, and almost another 20,000 new registrations directly through VoteSaveAmerica.com. The socially distant conversation Obama recorded with Biden from Obama's office in Washington is among the most viewed elements for the whole campaign. In the first three days alone, 25 million people watched it. And more than 40,000 people have signed up for Biden's campaign by clicking through from that video.

Read: When Obama talked Biden out of running for president

"Everyone's been wondering how you campaign in a pandemic, and we're trying to show them how," says Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to the former president.

Obama will spend much of the next few weeks texting, tweeting, and recording web videos. He's agreed to a few interviews with podcast hosts he can count on to let him say what he wants: One with his former campaign manager David Plouffe, and another on Pod Save America, whose hosts met while working for him. "A very important question after the election, even if it goes well with Joe Biden, is whether you start seeing the Republican Party restore some sense of 'Here are norms that we can't breach,' because [Trump's] breached all of them, and they have not said to him, 'This is too far,'" Obama told the Pod Save America hosts yesterday.

Obama has raised more money for the Biden campaign via text and emails with his name on them than anyone other than Biden and Harris themselves; a text of his from late September is one of the top 10 of all time for money raised. Sitting at his table at home, he has appeared at several fundraisers for the Biden campaign, for House Democrats, and for All on the Line, the redistricting group that he helped found and that merged with his Organizing for Action group two years ago.

Over the summer, Obama advised LeBron James as the NBA star was figuring out how to get more involved in politics. Obama has stayed involved with James's group, More Than a Vote- a surprise appearance in the virtual fan section for Game 1 of the NBA Finals, alongside past Lakers stars and poll workers, led to a tripling of the number of volunteers who signed up as poll workers. "He's a figure of cultural significance now, not just political significance," says Addisu Demissie, the group's executive director, explaining why he thinks Obama was able to help in a way that other politicians couldn't.

This is the first election cycle in 20 years that Obama hasn't been out on the trail. As much as he enjoys not having to interrupt his schedule, he misses the crowds cheering for him. He misses whipping people up in person, especially against Trump, whom he despises so deeply. But he did draw 120,826 viewers to the grassroots fundraiser he appeared at in June for Biden, raising $11 million in small donations-way more people, and probably more money, than he could have raised at a single live event.

Obama has also continued to make endorsements, including many for down-ballot races-and after years of Democrats distancing themselves from him when he was in the White House, the number of swing-district candidates now chasing his public support has gratified him. He's thrown his weight around a little, endorsing Reverend Raphael Warnock in one of this year's Georgia Senate elections. That earned Obama a brushback from another Democratic candidate, Matt Lieberman, who tweeted at Warnock, "Congrats on endorsement from 44 who has endorsed every DC-approved Senate candidate."

Read: Can the religious left flip the Bible Belt?

Meanwhile, Obama's apoplexy at the Republicans continues to seep out. Speaking last week at a fundraiser for All on the Line, he started by referencing a series of tweets by Senator Mike Lee of Utah. In one, the conservative Republican wrote that "we're not a democracy." In another, he said the United States should avoid "rank democracy."

"He rationalized it-'Technically we're a republic and this and that and the other," Obama said. "What he was indicating is a spirit we have been seeing in one of our major political parties, and it's not new, it's one that's been with us since our founding-that essentially says democracy is for some people, not for everybody."

"There is goodness and decency and common sense in the American people that is not currently represented in our government," Obama added later, trying to take a swipe at Trump and the Republicans while keeping up his optimism.

Or the scared-straight version for Democrats: "If you don't translate the righteous anger and frustration that we saw over the summer into the ballot box," he said, "you can keep on protesting, but nothing's going to change."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
obama’s democratic national convention speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The arena politician won't be appearing in an arena anytime soon. He has other plans. Ashton Kutcher was at a tech conference in Salt Lake City in March last year to promote Community, a new mass-texting app he'd just invested in.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because it talks about trumps acomplishments , including his efforts with the army.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump's strongest supporters and toughest critics each have acknowledged that 100 days is a brief window to assess the commander in chief.

But that hasn't stopped the White House from promoting several lists of accomplishments during the first few months of Trump's term in office, including a host of military moves. The administration insists his defense actions signal the kind of leader he'll be for at least the next 1,360 days.

In a statement released Tuesday, administration officials said Trump so far "has taken bold action to restore prosperity, keep Americans safe and secure, and hold government accountable." It noted that "with a focus on rebuilding the military, ending illegal immigration, and restoring confidence in our economy, the president is keeping his promises to the American people."

However, not all of the touted achievements are clear-cut wins. Officials have highlighted some extensions of the previous administration's policies as their own successes, while listing future promises among already completed actions.

What the White House sees as Trump's most important military moves so far:

Syria missile strikes

In an interview with The Associated Press on April 24, Trump characterized as "great responsibility" his decision to attack a Syrian airfield in response to a chemical weapons attack. It illustrated to him the difference between managing a company and a country.

"This is risk that's involved, because if the missile goes off and goes in a city or goes in a civilian area ... every decision is much harder than you'd normally make," he told AP. "This is involving death and life and so many things."

White House officials have framed the April 6 attack as a restoration of America's leadership on the world stage, the kind of bold action needed to push back against dangerous regimes and too often lacking during President Barack Obama's tenure.

But reaction on Capitol Hill was mixed. While most Republicans and some Democrats supported the strike, lawmakers from both parties lamented the lack of a clearer strategy for the region. And several have questioned whether Trump will require congressional authority for similar military moves in the future.

In remarks the evening of the attack, Trump called the decision one of "vital national security interest." White House officials have left open the possibility of additional strikes in the future.
The F-35 renegotiation
Throughout the presidential campaign, Trump boasted about his negotiation prowess and said he would bring that business expertise with him to the Oval Office.

He claimed his first victory in that area in March, when Pentagon officials announced the latest purchase of F-35 fighters. Administration officials have repeatedly said that Trump's discussions with Lockheed Martin executives saved Americans at least $700 million on the new batch aircraft.

Lockheed Martin representatives have not pushed back on those figures, but the savings appear to be in line with cost reductions announced by military officials late last year, before Trump got involved.

Still, those criticisms have not dissuaded Trump from using the program as an example of promised reforms and savings.

"If I can do that ... the aircraft carriers, billions of dollars, the Gerald Ford, billions and billions over budget," he told AP. "That won't happen."
$54B defense funding boost

White House officials are also trumpeting Trump's "advocacy" for a $54 billion defense budget increase as an important step to rebuild the military, even if that plan is still far from reality.

An outline of the plussed-up security spending would follow through on the president's campaign promises to add significant military end strength and equipment.

So far, the plan has gotten mostly positive reviews from Republicans on Capitol Hill, even if a handful of prominent party leaders like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, say it doesn't go far enough.

Promising the money and getting Congress to approve it are two vastly different things, however. Lawmakers have barely discussed the fiscal 2018 federal spending plan so far, instead scrambling this week for ideas to keep the government open until at least the fall.

Democrats have promised a fierce fight over Trump's budget plan, saying that other domestic needs and international assistance programs can't be sacrificed to pay for the defense build up. Lawmakers will spend most of the summer debating whether a compromise can be reached.
'Winning again'
Trump has repeatedly promised that he will "empower our military to fight," a shot at what he and conservatives saw as the last administration's micromanagement of defense operations overseas.

Pentagon officials said there have not been any significant changes to the rules of engagement for troops in foreign combat zones, but the White House has hinted at more autonomy within that framework for local commanders.

For example, when asked about the use of a massive new bomb in an assault on Islamic State positions in Afghanistan, Trump indicated the order did not originate from the White House.

"What I do is I authorize my military," he said. "We have the greatest military in the world, and they've done the job, as usual. We have given them total authorization, and that's what they're doing."

Trump has also stated that he has restored the military's morale and pride, saying in the AP interview that "they were not proud at all" during Obama's tenure. But administration officials have offered no data to back up those claims.
Missing ISIS plan
One conspicuous absent item from the White House accomplishment lists is any mention of the fight against ISIS. During the presidential campaign, he promised a quick defeat of the terrorist group, accusing the previous administration of using too light a hand in the fight.

He has promised both a more forceful plan of attack but also no major increases in U.S. troops on the ground in the region.

Trump ordered a full review of the fight in Syria and Iraq at the start of his presidency, but has been tight-lipped about the results. He has repeatedly said he is reluctant to talk publicly about military strategy, out of fear it will give valuable intelligence to America's enemies.

In his interview with AP, Trump said he has "a very strong plan" but also said "I don't talk about it ... and the generals don't talk about it."

But Trump has also lamented that he has not received enough credit for advances in the fight in recent months, saying that troops have enjoyed "tremendous success" since he took office. Pentagon officials have been calmer in their assessments, detailing continued progress in the ongoing fight over the last several months.
Defense News reporter Valerie Insinna contributed to this story. Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at lshane@militarytimes.com.
Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
White House officials have touted a host of military moves as accomplishments in the president's early administration.

# data[].attributes.body
this is an example because he is hosting a foreign leader.

# data[].attributes.body
This one explains how Trump almost lost the recognition he had behind being able to make an agenda. Due to mass shutdowns and disagreements, it forced him to face the idea that he might lose that specific power.