Trump, GOP leaders face backlash over $1.3 trillion spending package

President Trump faces losing support from his base in the wake of his decision Friday to sign a controversial and much-derided $1.3 trillion spending bill -- over not only its size but its failure to fund his campaign promise of a wall on the U.S. southern border.
Trump briefly threatened to veto the legislation, voted through the House and Senate on Thursday and early Friday in order to avoid a government shutdown.

Conservatives balked at the $1.3 trillion price tag, as well as the failure to promote Republican causes such as the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the funding of the wall on the southern border in particular. While the legislation served up $1.6 billion for border security, it mainly consisted of repairs and additions to already existing fencing.
Congressional leaders and the White House noted that it increased funding for the military, infrastructure and also grants to fight the nation's opioid epidemic.

Trump blindsided White House aides and lawmakers when he tweeted Friday morning that he was considering vetoing the legislation over its failure to include funding for the border wall as well as a fix for the expiring Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that grants protection to illegal immigrants brought to the country as children.
But Trump eventually signed the mammoth legislation reluctantly, saying in remarks to the press with other members of the administration that, in order to secure a necessary increase in military spending, he had to give money to Democratic projects that he derided as a "wasted sum of money."
"It's not right, and it's very bad for our country," he said.
But he said military spending was vital and it was that concern that overrode his thoughts about vetoing the legislation.
TRUMP SIGNS $1.3 TRILLION SPENDING BILL, DESPITE EARLIER THREAT TO VETO
“Therefore, as a matter of national security, I've signed this omnibus budget bill. There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about in this bill…But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I'm not going to do it again,” he said.
Yet despite his distancing himself from it, the very act of him signing it enraged his base. A White House official told Axios that the reaction to the signing "is the hardest I've ever seen the base turn on Trump over anything."
"A big reason why people voted for him was because of his apparent willingness to stand up to the entrenched political class in both parties," the official said. "Voters wanted a fighter who wouldn't back down to 'the swamp' like a 'typical politician.'"
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who in 2016 wrote a book called “In Trump we Trust,” told Fox News Radio’s Tom Shillue that the ramifications will hit the GOP in the midterms, particularly in the House.
“The House will definitely flip, why would anyone vote Republican?” she said.
On Twitter, she also congratulated “President Schumer” and agreed with Trump that he won’t sign another bill like that, but added that was because a Democratic House would impeach him.
"The president was really sold a bill of goods here," Christopher Ruddy, Newsmax's chief executive, who is regularly in touch with Trump, told The Washington Post. "Conservatives look at this omnibus bill and say, 'This is not why they elected Donald Trump. This is not a good bill for him to sign.' "
Commentator Michelle Malkin said on "Fox and Friends" that she was “disgusted” with the legislation, but aimed most of her anger at congressional leadership.
“I’m beyond disappointed; I’m disgusted,” Malkin said. “I’m disgusted with the so-called GOP leadership. This falls squarely on the shoulders of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. It is business as usual.”
Even in Congress, there was significant opposition to the legislation. The conservative House Freedom Caucus had encouraged Trump ahead of the signing to veto the bill, while budget hawk Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., repeatedly slammed the bill, later saying: “Maybe the GOP holding hands Democrats isn’t such a great idea.”

The Trump team continued to point the blame at Congress, with Trump campaign advisor Katrina Pierson tweeting back to Paul: “It would be more helpful to change out your leadership instead of doing everything possible to keep them in place.”

But other advisers were less supportive of the president.
“This was the worst day since the 2016 win. Signing that Bush/Obama budget was a kick in the gut,” a conservative advisor to Trump, but not in the White House, told Fox News. “I still love this President but, wow, hard to swallow this bitter pill. Funded Planned Parenthood and not a wall. What did we fight so hard for?”

Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill, despite earlier threat to veto

President Trump signed the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill Friday despite an earlier threat to veto the legislation due to the lack of border wall funding and a fix for DACA.
Trump signed the mammoth legislation reluctantly, saying in a press availability with other members of the administration that, in order to secure a necessary increase in military spending, he had to give money to Democratic projects that he derided as a "wasted sum of money."
"It's not right and it's very bad for our country," he said.
But he said that military spending was very important, and that concern overrode his thoughts about vetoing the legislation.
“Therefore, as a matter of national security, I've signed this omnibus budget bill. There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about in this bill…But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I'm not going to do it again,” he said.
He also called on Congress to end the filibuster in the Senate and to give him a line item veto.
“To prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again, I'm calling on Congress to give me a line item veto for all government spending bills," he said. "And the Senate must end -- they must end -- the filibuster rule and get down to work.”
Trump had tweeted earlier Friday that he was considering using the veto, saying that recipients of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program “have been totally abandoned by the Democrats.” He added that the border wall, which he said was "desperately needed for our National Defense" is not fully funded.
The House adjourned Friday morning until Monday, meaning that if Trump had vetoed the bill then the government would shut down.
Trump moved to end the DACA program in September, giving Congress a six-month window to come up with a legislative fix. That deadline has been delayed by court orders, but the fate of the 800,000 enrolled recipients is still uncertain.
Trump addressed DACA recipients at the press availability: "Republicans are with you," he said, before accusing Democrats of blocking efforts to fix DACA "every step of the way."
The White House has tried to use the DACA issue to convince Democrats to support approximately $25 billion in funding for Trump’s central campaign promise. But a congressional GOP source told Fox News talks broke drown after Democrats pushed for a path to citizenship to include also those who are currently eligible -- expanding those covered to 1.8 million.
The spending bill passed by Congress includes only $1.6 billion for border measures -- much of which is for repairs to already existing fencing. It explicitly rules out any new prototypes of the kind President Trump viewed this month in California. But House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and the White House pushed back against conservative concerns on Thursday, saying it provided for 100 miles of border construction.
FUNDING FOR BORDER WALL IN SPENDING BILL DIVIDES CONSERVATIVES, ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS 
Democrats had claimed victory on the issue, pointing to the fact that Trump's requests for new deportation agents and detention center beds had gone unanswered, although they had expressed disappointment at the failure to get a DACA fix in the bill.
The deal has also irked more conservative members of Congress, who objected to the size and cost of the bill (which ran in at over 2,000 pages) as well as the failure to remove funding for Planned Parenthood and so-called "sanctuary cities."  Other Republicans approved of the deal, pointing to a massive increase in military and infrastructure spending as well as funding to help combat the nation's opioid crisis.
Trump’s veto threat was totally unexpected, particularly as the White House had signaled Trump would support the bill if passed by Congress. Most lawmakers have already left Washington for a two week recess. Some are on overseas trips already.

Schumer aide 'tired of all the winning' after Trump signs spending bill

A top aide to Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) mocked President Trump on Friday over the passage of a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill.
Schumer's communications director Matt House tweeted Friday afternoon that he was "tired of all the winning" after Trump signed the bill into law.

I, for one, am tired of all the winning.

— Matt House (@mattwhouse) March 23, 2018

House's tweet came amid furious reactions from conservative lawmakers and top Trump supporters online over the president signing the bill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Conservatives slammed the massive price tag of the measure and criticized its lack of funding for Trump's signature plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The measure did include a major increase in the military's budget.
Trump, who floated a potential veto earlier in the day, threatened Friday to "never" sign a bill like the omnibus spending package again. He had been pressuring Congress for months to include both funding for his wall proposal and a legislative fix for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients.
"Yeah, because you’ll be impeached," conservative commentator Ann Coulter tweeted in response to Trump's veto threat.
Coulter went on to imply that Schumer had personally defeated Trump in the battle over the bill.
"CONGRATULATIONS, PRESIDENT SCHUMER!" she added.

CONGRATULATIONS, PRESIDENT SCHUMER!

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 23, 2018

Matt Drudge, who runs the right-leaning news aggregation site Drudge Report, targeted Trump for failing to follow through on a threat to veto the bill Friday with the headline "Fake Veto" displayed on the website's homepage.
During an impromptu bill signing at the White House, Trump complained that "nobody read" the 2,232-page piece of legislation, which Congress passed quickly to avert a third government shutdown this year.
"It's only hours old. Some people don't even know what's in it," Trump said.

If Democrats run in 2018 like they're running in California, they're in big trouble

Kurt Bardella, Opinion Columnist
Published 3:08 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2018 | Updated 1:53 p.m. ET March 5, 2018

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

If you’ve been in politics long enough, you’ve heard the phrase, “As goes California, so goes the nation.”

In the case of the 2018 midterm elections, this could spell bad news for Democrats and good news for Republicans.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats openly and almost giddily mused about a potential 40-seat pickup in the House, nearly double the 24 seats they need to flip in order to retake the majority. However, recent weeks have given Democrats reason to think twice about their lofty expectations.

Their advantage on the generic ballot preference goes up and down and often falls to single digits. Even more troubling for their congressional takeover prospects, however, is the state of the Democratic Party in California.

California Democrats hosted their party convention in San Diego last weekend and made some absolutely puzzling decisions.

In a stunning rebuke of the establishment, the party refused to endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She won only 37% support from convention delegates, far short of the 60% she needed. Progressive challenger and state Senate leader Kevin de Leon also fell short, but he outperformed Feinstein with 54% of the vote.

Feinstein is still the heavy favorite to win re-election in November. But the rejection of Feinstein, a political icon in California, is a potentially important data point in the civil war brewing within the Democratic Party between the base and establishment.

Have the Democrats not learned anything from watching the war within the Republican Party?

What’s even more perplexing is the reality that Feinstein can’t get the party’s endorsement, but a female lawmaker being investigated for sexual misconduct in the state Capitol can get it.

There are other signs that show California Democrats just do not have their act together. For instance, the San Diego-area 49th congressional district was considered one of the top battleground seats in the country. For almost two decades, the district had been represented by my former boss, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa. In January, Issa announced that he'd forgo re-election and retire at the end of his term.

Since then, the situation has deteriorated for Democrats. Now there are fears that under California's jungle primary system, in which the top two vote-getters go on to the general election regardless of party, so many Democrats are running that they'll divide the vote and a Democrat might not even make the top two.

In a completely botched effort to narrow the field, one candidate had prepared to leave the race and run for a different office at the local level, but inexplicably failed to review the residency guidelines and missed the cutoff to qualify for the local election by a single day. Another did drop out, but that leaves four relatively unknown Democrats still running for the congressional seat against a better known Republican lineup that includes a member of the state Board of Equalization, a state assemblyman, a San Diego County supervisor and a local mayor.

The Issa district isn’t an isolated situation, either. Seven Democrats are running in the Orange County district held by retiring Rep. Ed Royce. Four Democrats are challenging Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also in Orange County.

How can a party so divided hope to defeat the Republicans in November?

Complicating matters, Democratic candidates will once again face U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's litmus test. Since 2010, Republicans have likely spent more than $150 million on attack ads tying Democrats to Pelosi — and it has worked every time. Pelosi has gone from a 39% approval rating in 2013 to 29% in 2017. President Trump refers to Pelosi as theGOP’s “secret weapon.”

Clearly, the Democrats are their own worst enemies, but we knew that already having watched the sequence of events that put Donald Trump in the White House.

On paper, Democrats have every reason to be optimistic about their chances to take back the House. History is certainly in their favor. In the postwar midterm era, the median loss for a president’s party has been 22 seats. Since 1962, the president's party has lost 40 seats on average when the president’s approval rating is below 50% — and Trump’s is at 41%.

And yet, an icon like Feinstein can’t even get her state party’s endorsement. With prime pickup opportunities in reach, Democrats can’t even narrow the field in competitive districts and could be left out of the general election entirely. And the leader of congressional Democrats is the weapon of choice for Republicans to use against them.

If, and it might be a big if, Republicans somehow survive the midterms with their majority intact, Democrats will emerge the morning after demoralized and asking themselves: What went wrong?

The answers could very well lie in California.

Kurt Bardella, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is a former  spokesperson for Republican members of Congress and Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter: @kurtbardella

Law Breaking Illegal Cartoons

Advice for Trump: Don't fire Robert Muller -- He will clear you in the end

Opinion by Robert Charles

Will he or won’t he? Rumors continue to swirl and speculation abounds about whether President Trump will order the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian meddling in our 2016 presidential election and alleged misconduct by the Trump campaign and the president.
President Trump is a high-risk, high-reward player and he often wins. He’s a man of action who is impatient with delays. But in this case, he needs patience. He needs to let the Mueller probe finish on its own time, politically and legally, because that’s the only way for the president to shut down all the speculation and be cleared of doing anything wrong.
So firing Mueller should be off the table – something President Trump doesn’t even consider. The president needs to focus on his job, do his best to serve the American people, and just hit pause and stop being preoccupied by the Mueller probe. Talking about it and tweeting about it again and again, day after day, simply creates more news coverage and more public concern about the investigation.
President Trump needs vindication from Mueller to push legislation through Congress, manage international affairs with proper authority, protect America’s national security without distraction, and guide America through these complex times. He also needs vindication to win a second term. So waiting for Mueller to wind up his investigation, even if it goes on for several more months, is in the president’s best interest.
For obvious reasons, the president is frustrated. Who wouldn’t be? The “Russia collusion” story is at a dead end. In terms of what is on the public record, the claims of collusion don’t add up. Indeed, the facts known to the public point toward illegal collusion among top Obama administration officials who apparently aimed to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, or hobble him if he won.
Still, the Mueller probe continues on and on and on.
On the public record, we know that senior FBI and intelligence officials were apoplectic – texting with adolescent anxiety, fear and fury – in their determination to assure that Trump was defeated by Hillary Clinton.
The devotion of these federal employees to Clinton remains peculiar, almost religious. Perhaps it was fed by fear of the inexperienced, conservative, and irreverently tweeting candidate Trump.
While federal employees have First Amendment rights to an opinion, what is now obvious is that some abused their positions and power and engaged in a conspiracy to bend the law to serve their opinions. That is not acceptable or excusable, regardless of whether it is directed against a Democratic or Republican candidate.
What is also obvious is that the conspiracy to undermine President Trump both before and after he took office was undertaken without compunction, with gloves-off zeal and continued into 2017.
Andrew McCabe, former No. 2 official at the FBI, was recently fired for substantive, non-political reasons. His self-defense was breathtaking. He wrapped himself in the American flag and in the FBI’s reputation for integrity. But he failed to rebut nonpartisan infractions detailed by the Justice Department Inspector General’s Office, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Justice Department leadership.
Distilled from an array of 2016 election-focused investigations – some already completed, some ongoing—here are some key facts:
· The largest cache of Hillary Clinton recovered emails – a topic we are all sick of talking about – cast the Democratic presidential candidate in a very negative light. McCabe and others chose not to release the emails when they were found in September 2016. That is unforgivable.
· The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (ACT) court, meant to protect all Americans from abuse by a politically twisted Justice Department, was tricked. The FBI’s McCabe, Director James Comey and others knowingly sought and gained an invasive warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign by using information paid for by the Clinton campaign. Without that information, the surveillance warrant – by their own admission – would not have been granted. That is unforgivable.
· Increasingly, it looks like the zealous effort to first stop candidate Trump and then undermine President Trump had appendages. One reason McCabe was summarily let go, without his full pension, is that he was allegedly untruthful under oath multiple times about leaking anti-Trump material to the media.
· Curiously, Comey, who knowingly reverted to calling the Clinton “investigation” a “matter” during the election campaign when directed by Obama’s attorney general, reportedly leaked sensitive law enforcement information to the media.
· Likewise, one reason former British spy Christopher Steele of dossier fame was let go by the FBI, which had mysteriously contracted with him to provide information about Trump, was that Steele had also been briefing the media on anti-Trump material.
These are just some of the holes in the anti-Trump narrative alleging misconduct by the candidate and his campaign. Put it all together and so far – as far as we know from what’s public – and the accusations just don’t add up.
The biggest take-away is this: If collusion is a bad thing – and for undermining the integrity of any federal election it is – the white-hot spotlight belongs elsewhere, and seems to be moving that way.
Why, then, should the Mueller probe continue?
The reason is simple, legal and is why our impatient president and his supporters – including all those unfairly accused, unjustifiably hobbled, and frustratingly made to wait – should take a deep breath, stop being preoccupied by the probe and simply let it finish.
The reports that special counsels and prosecutors typically issue at the end of their inquiries – on average after 22 months of investigation – are usually thorough. Sometimes a prosecutor “colors outside the lines,” nabbing side players for singular acts of obstruction, perjury without a predicate act, or for unrelated misconduct discovered in the course of an investigation. But generally they focus on the mission and don’t go too far afield.
In this case, reams of exculpatory information have found their way into the media, chiefly by way of congressional investigators and private sources, validating President Trump’s contention of innocence.
Additionally, this information shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government is a bad actor – no surprise – and that all Americans, regardless of political party, have a right to be unsettled, indignant, and on guard against Russian meddling in our elections.
But none of this implicates President Trump in any wrongdoing. In fact, Mueller’s probe is helping protect America by ferreting out how pervasive, invasive and invidious the Russian intentions are.
So, in the end, the president and his team have a right to that clean bill of health, whether he answers more questions or lets the record speak for itself. He needs a timely conclusion to the Mueller probe, in order to best serve America’s domestic, international and national interests – to do his job unencumbered by this pasty, perfidious fiction, propagated by misguided former federal officials.
Let Mueller reach that conclusion without interference, and the president and our country will be better off.
Robert Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.  

Take blame for government shutdown? ‘F--- that,’ Trump reportedly told aides

Here is one of the real problems with our government.

President Donald Trump’s remarks after signing a massive $1.3 trillion, 2,232-page spending bill this week made clear he was not happy about doing it.
"It's not right and it's very bad for our country," he told a gathering of reporters.
But the alternative – which some White House aides reportedly said would have included shouldering much of the blame for another government shutdown – didn’t appeal to the president either.
“F--- that,” Trump said when faced with the option, sources told the Wall Street Journal.
In a similar outburst last week, Trump reportedly dispelled any notion of firing national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, describing such rumors as, “Total f---ing bulls---,” the Journal reported.
Nevertheless, McMaster was ousted Thursday and replaced with John Bolton.
The president's profane candor could signal what some observers say is Trump's increasing confidence on the job and growing trust in his instincts after 14 months in the Oval Office.
That could explain the recent personnel changes at the White House -- and reports that Trump may have an even more dramatic shake-up in mind.
The president has floated to outside advisers a plan to do away with the traditional West Wing power structure, including the formal chief of staff role, to create the more free-wheeling atmosphere he relished while running his business and later his presidential campaign at Trump Tower.

Wife who aided illegal immigrant husband in slayings of 2 sheriff's deputies gets 50 years

A Utah woman was sentenced to nearly 50 years in prison Friday for helping her husband as he killed two Northern California sheriff's deputies in 2014.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steve White sentenced Janelle Monroy after jurors last month rejected her argument that she feared her husband Luis Bracamontes would have killed her if she didn't help him.
"Ms. Monroy, you did not start this reign of terror, but you joined in immediately after as an active participant," White said, according to the Sacramento Bee.
Monroy, 41, willingly moved her husband's assault-style rifle from vehicle to stolen vehicle after he killed Sacramento County sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver and before he killed Placer County sheriff's Detective Michael Davis Jr. hours later, prosecutors said.

Sacramento County sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver  (Sacramento County Sheriff's Department )

Monroy is a U.S. citizen while Bracamontes is a Mexican citizen who repeatedly entered the United States illegally. President Donald Trump has cited his case to illustrate problems with the nation's immigration policy.
Bracamontes has repeatedly said in court that he killed the deputies and wished he had killed more.
The deputies were killed shortly after the couple arrived in Sacramento during what
Monroy said was a wandering journey spurred by Bracamontes' drug-infused paranoia.

Placer County sheriff's Detective Michael Davis Jr.  (Placer County Sheriff's Department)

The court also heard victim impact statements from Davis’ family, the report said.
"I feel like my heart has been ripped out of my chest," Debbie McMahon, Davis’ mother, said.
White rejected arguments from defense attorney Pete Kmeto that Monroy was a battered wife and victim of an abusive, threatening husband, who "was armed to the teeth, raving
about killing people" and abused methamphetamine, the Bee reported.

 Janelle Monroy listens in court as she is found guilty of murder in Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 15, 2018.  (Sacramento Bee via Associated Press)

"She's not the person who killed law enforcement officers," Kmeto said, noting that Monroy never pulled a trigger during the crime spree. "This client is not an evil person, this client has been victimized and has had a tough life."
In opposition, Sacramento prosecutor Rod Norgaard told the judge that Monroy knew before the rampage that her husband wanted to kill police officers, the newspaper reported.
"She did not commit a crime with the devil," Norgaard said. "She married him."
Monroy faced a life sentence after she was convicted of 10 charges including murder, attempted murder and carjacking, attempted carjacking and possessing an assault rifle.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Bracamontes, who was convicted by a separate jury. Closing arguments in his case are set for Monday.

President Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from service except in 'limited circumstances'

Capt. Jennifer Peace, a transgender soldier

President Donald Trump on Friday officially authorized the ability of the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from joining the military, with limited exceptions, following through on a pledge he made last year.
"Among other things, the policies set forth by the Secretary of Defense state that transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria -- individuals who the policies state may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery -- are disqualified from military service except under certain limited circumstances," a memo released by the White House on Friday night said.
Maj. David Eastburn, a Pentagon spokesman, said the announcement of a new policy would have no immediate practical effect on the military because the Pentagon is obliged to continue to recruit and retain transgender people in accordance with current law.
The Department of Justice issued a statement defending the Pentagon:
“After comprehensive study and analysis, the Secretary of Defense concluded that new policies should be adopted regarding individuals with gender dysphoria that are consistent with military effectiveness and lethality, budgetary constraints, and applicable law," the statement reads. "The Department of Justice will continue to defend DOD’s lawful authority to create and implement personnel policies they have determined are necessary to best defend our nation.
"Consistent with this new policy, we are asking the courts to lift all related preliminary injunctions in order to ensure the safety and security of the American people and the best fighting force in the world.”
But criticism came quickly from LGBT advocates and from the leadership of the Democratic Party.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, accused the Trump administration of pushing "anti-transgender prejudices onto the military."
"There is simply no way to spin it, the Trump-Pence Administration is going all in on its discriminatory, unconstitutional and despicable ban on transgender troops," said HRC President Chad Griffin.
The Democratic National Committee released a statement signed by Chairman Tom Perez, DNC LGBT Caucus Chair Earl Fowlkes, and DNC Treasurer Bill Derrough, whom the DNC says was prevented from serving in the military because he is openly gay.
“This decision is an insult to our brave transgender service members and all who wear our nation’s uniform," the statement reads. "Instead of fulfilling his oath to protect the American people, Donald Trump and Mike Pence are putting our nation’s security at risk and shoving real American patriots back in the closet."

  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote, "This latest memorandum is the same cowardly, disgusting ban the President announced last summer. No one with the strength and bravery to serve in the U.S. military should be turned away because of who they are."

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in February sent Trump a memorandum laying out policies that "in the exercise of his independent judgment" should be implemented by the Defense Department. The memo reads, in part:
“Based on the work of the Panel and the Department’s best military judgement, the Department of Defense concludes that there are substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require, or have already undertaken, a course of treatment to change their gender.
"Furthermore, the Department also finds that exempting such persons from well-established mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards, which apply to all Service members, including transgender Service members without gender dysphoria, could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden of the military that is mot conductive to military effectiveness and lethality."
In July, Trump tweeted that the federal government "will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military" - reversing a 2016 policy under President Barack Obama. The move caught the Pentagon by surprise.
"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," the president said at the time.
Trump's push for the ban has been blocked by several legal challenges and the Pentagon began allowing transgender recruits to seek enlistment in January.
A 2016 study by the Rand Corp. estimated that nearly 4,000 transgender troops were on active duty and in the reserves, Politico reported. But LGBT advocacy groups in the military put the figure at around 15,000, the report said.

Liberal Cable News Cartoons