WASHINGTON: President Joe Biden on Tuesday proposed new taxes on the rich to help fund Medicare, saying the plan would help to extend the insurance program’s solvency by 25 years and provide a degree of middle-class stability to millions of older adults.
In his plan, Biden is overtly declaring that the wealthy ought to shoulder a heavier tax burden. His budget would draw a direct line between those new taxes and the popular health insurance program for people older than 65, essentially asking those who’ve fared best in the economy to subsidize the rest of the population.
Biden wants to increase the Medicare tax rate from 3.8 percent to 5 percent on income exceeding $400,000 per year, including salaries and capital gains. The White House did not provide specific cost-saving estimates with the proposal, but the move would likely increase tax revenues by more than $117 billion over 10 years, according to prior estimates in February by the Tax Policy Center.
“This modest increase in Medicare contributions from those with the highest incomes will help keep the Medicare program strong for decades to come,” Biden wrote in a Tuesday essay in The New York Times. He called Medicare a “rock-solid guarantee that Americans have counted on to be there for them when they retire.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, was quick to dismiss the plan, telling reporters on Tuesday that Biden’s budget agenda “will not see the light of day.”
More than 65 million people rely on Medicare at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $900 billion every year. The number of Medicare enrollees is expected to continue growing as the US population ages. But funding for the program is a problem with federal officials warning that, without cuts or tax increases, the Medicare fund might only be able to pay for 90 percent of benefits by 2028.
Biden’s suggested Medicare changes are part of a fuller budget proposal that he plans to release on Thursday in Philadelphia. Pushing the proposal through Congress will likely be difficult, with Republicans in control of the House and Democrats holding only a slim majority in the Senate.
The proposal is a direct challenge to GOP lawmakers, who argue that economic growth comes from tax cuts like those pushed through by former President Donald Trump in 2017. Those cuts disproportionately favored wealthier households and companies. They contributed to higher budget deficits, when growth failed to boom as Trump had promised and the economy was then derailed in 2020 by the coronavirus pandemic.
The conflicting worldviews on how taxes would impact the economy is part of a broader showdown. Biden and Congress need to reach a deal to raise the government’s borrowing authority at some point this summer, or else the government could default and plunge the US into a debilitating recession.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an advocate for the kinds of tax cuts generally favored by Republicans, said that the US economy would suffer because of the president’s plan.
“The Biden tax hikes will raise the cost of goods and services for everyone, and make American workers and businesses less competitive internationally and vs. China,” Norquist said.
But Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, applauded the plan despite having some reservations about it.
“The president’s plan would generate hundreds of billions of dollars – perhaps even approaching a trillion dollars – to strengthen Medicare,” said MacGuineas, a fiscal watchdog focused on deficit reduction.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to discuss the numbers behind the budget plan. She told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing that she would not “dive into the math,” but that Biden’s proposal on Thursday “will be very detailed and transparent.”
Ahead of an expected budget feud and the 2024 campaign season, Democrats have ramped up talk around Medicare, vowing to fend off any Republican attempts to cut the program, although so far the GOP has vowed to avoid any cuts. Still, Republican lawmakers have reached little consensus on how to fulfill their promise to put the government on a path toward balancing the federal budget in the next 10 years.
Last year, members of the House Republican Study Committee proposed raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67, which would match Social Security. But that idea hasn’t moved forward in a split Congress.
Republicans have denied that they plan to cut the program. A proposal from Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., that would require Congress to reconsider all federal laws every five years, including Medicare, has gotten little traction.
Raising taxes on Americans who make more than $250,000 to pay for Medicare has broad support among older Americans, but raising the eligibility age for Medicare, is widely unpopular, said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst for the nonpartisan Senior Citizens League who has researched the issue.
Politicians who try that route might “lose supporters and it can backfire. You can wind up losing your office, too,” she said. “A very high percentage of seniors are voting in elections.”
Biden’s plan is also intended to close what the White House describes as loopholes that allow people to avoid Medicare taxes on some income. Besides the taxes, Biden wants to expand Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug costs, which began with the Inflation Reduction Act. He signed the sweeping legislation last year.
The White House said its budget plan would expand the pharmaceutical drug provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. More drugs would be subject to price negotiations, other drugs would be brought into the negotiation process sooner and the scope of rebates would be expanded.
Taken together, Biden’s new proposals would help shore up a key trust fund that pays for Medicare, which provides health care for older adults. According to the White House, the changes would keep the fund solvent until the 2050s, about 25 years longer than currently expected.
Changes would also be made to Medicare benefits. Biden wants to limit cost sharing for some generic drugs to only $2. The idea would lower out-of-pocket costs for treating hypertension, high cholesterol and other ailments.
Joe Biden plans new taxes on the rich to help save Medicare
https://arab.news/4rznz
Joe Biden plans new taxes on the rich to help save Medicare
- More than 65 million people rely on Medicare at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $900 billion every year
Trump tests whether a bulldozer can also be a peacemaker
- During his first stint in power, Trump ordered a strike that killed senior Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and vowed confrontation with China
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has vowed to be a peacemaker in his new term, but his aggressive early actions threaten to alienate US friends in a way that could hinder his ambitions, experts say.
In an inaugural address on Monday, Trump said that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier” and pointed to his support for a new ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaking to reporters as he returned to the White House after four years, Trump also suggested he would press Russia to make a deal to end its three-year invasion of Ukraine, quipping that President Vladimir Putin — with whom he had famously warm relations in the past — knows he is “destroying” his own country.
But in the throwback to the bedlam of his 2017-2021 term, Trump’s return was also consumed by rage over grievances at home, and the most memorable foreign-policy line of his inaugural address was a vow to take back the Panama Canal, which the United States returned in 1999 but where Trump charges that China has gained too strong a foothold.
Trump has also spoken of seizing Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, moved to send the military to the Mexican border to stop migration, vowed tariffs even against close allies and announced the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization and Paris climate accord, both home to almost every other country.
“Trump’s worldview seems to be contradictory. He has a streak that is pro-peace and another streak which seems more confrontational and militarist,” said Benjamin Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint.
During his first stint in power, Trump ordered a strike that killed senior Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and vowed confrontation with China, although he also boasted of keeping US troops out of new wars and sought diplomacy with North Korea.
“In the first term, the more confrontational and militarist streak won out more often than not” on tension spots such as Iran, Friedman said.
This time, he said, at least on Ukraine and the Middle East, Trump appears to have shifted to a more progressive stance.
But on Latin America, and in his selection of aides with hawkish views on China, Trump remains hawkish, Friedman said.
He said that Trump essentially had a 19th-century philosophy in line with populist president Andrew Jackson, feeling a comfort with threatening the use of force to achieve national interests.
Such a way of thinking, for Trump, “isn’t consistent necessarily with being a peacemaker or a warmonger” but rather is a mix.
Trump made no clear mention of US allies on his inaugural day. In the past he has described NATO allies as freeloaders and pushed them to pay more for their own security.
However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was meeting Tuesday with counterparts from Japan, India and Australia — the so-called Quad of democracies which China sees as an effort to contain its rise.
Jon Alterman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Trump should be mindful of lessons from China, whose assertive “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy brought together a number of Asian countries on the receiving end.
“It would be a profound shift if the United States went from being seen as the principal provider of security to being the principal source on uncertainty,” Alterman said.
Trump, as he seeks to negotiate deals, “has an interest in keeping friendly countries on his side,” Alterman said.
Kori Schake, who served in senior defense planning roles under former president George W. Bush, said it was too early to tell the impact of Trump’s “chaos” on peacemaking and said that early actions could have been even more severe.
“But the actions he did take are still damaging. Withdrawing from the World Health Organization will give us less warning of emergent disease,” she said.
“Antagonizing Panama is counterproductive and will fan anti-Americanism throughout the hemisphere,” she said.
Trump’s UN pick blasts ‘anti-Semitic rot’ in world body
- Stefanik was pushed on her views on the war in Gaza, and noted that she voted to defund UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees
WASHINGTON: Donald Trump’s nominee to represent Washington at the United Nations railed against “anti-Semitic rot” in the global organization as she was grilled by senators at her confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
New York congresswoman Elize Stefanik noted that America contributes more to the UN than any other country and called for reform to ensure its tax dollars were not “propping up entities that are counter to American interests, anti-Semitic, or engaging in fraud, corruption or terrorism.”
A right-wing firebrand who was considered a moderate before the Trump era, Stefanik is seen as one of the most vocal supporters in Congress of both Israel and US Jewish causes.
“It’s one of the reasons why, in my conversation with President Trump, I was interested in this position — because if you look at the anti-Semitic rot within the United Nations, there are more resolutions targeting Israel than any other country, any other crisis, combined,” Stefanik told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Stefanik, 40, made the same criticism of the US higher education system as she touted her record of holding the feet of college administrators to the fire during aggressive questioning last year over anti-Semitism on campuses.
“My oversight work led to the most viewed testimony in the history of Congress,” she said.
“This hearing with university presidents was heard around the world and viewed billions of times, because it exposed the anti-Semitic rot in colleges and universities and was a watershed moment in American higher education.”
Stefanik was pushed on her views on the war in Gaza, and noted that she voted to defund UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Former president Joe Biden halted its US funding over allegations that members were possibly involved in the October 7 Hamas attacks.
Stefanik also revealed that she agreed with far-right Israeli ministers who believe Israel has a “biblical right to the entire West Bank” — but avoided being pinned down on whether she supported Palestinian self-determination.
Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman is the only Democrat to have pledged his support for Stefanik, but others have indicated they may wave her through and she is expected to be confirmed with little drama in a vote of the full Senate.
“If confirmed, I will work to ensure that our mission to the United Nations serves the interest of the American people, and represents American President Trump’s America First, peace-through-strength foreign policy,” she said.
Australia probes possible foreign funding behind anti-Semitic attacks
- Vandals have in recent weeks torched a Sydney childcare center, set cars ablaze in largely Jewish neighborhoods and splashed inner-city synagogues with red paint and graffiti
SYDNEY: Australia is investigating whether local criminals were paid by foreign actors to carry out a spate of anti-Semitic attacks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Wednesday.
Vandals have in recent weeks torched a Sydney childcare center, set cars ablaze in largely Jewish neighborhoods and splashed inner-city synagogues with red paint and graffiti.
Masked arsonists firebombed a synagogue in the city of Melbourne in December.
Albanese said some of these attacks appeared to have been carried out by “paid actors.”
“Some of these are being perpetrated by people who don’t have a particular issue, aren’t motivated by an idealogy, but are paid actors,” he said.
“It’s unclear who or where the payments are coming from.”
Australian Federal Police commissioner Reece Kershaw said detectives were investigating whether cash to fund these attacks had flowed from “overseas.”
“We are looking into whether overseas actors or individuals have paid local criminals in Australia to carry out some of these crimes in our suburbs.”
Neither Albanese nor police offered any details about what evidence authorities may have collected, which foreign actors were under suspicion, or why they were supposedly involved.
Police on Wednesday charged a 33-year-old man with attempting to light a Sydney synagogue on fire.
Eight people were charged on Tuesday with a string of “hate crime-related incidents” dating back to November, police said.
Trump’s pardons will embolden Proud Boys, other far-right groups, say experts
- Gavin McInnes, the British-born founder of the Proud Boys, said in an interview that he and his friends were celebrating late on Monday by “pounding bourbons and laughing our heads off”
- “Our politics has always been violent,” Pattis said, pointing to events ranging from the US Civil War to the protests in the 1960s
WASHINGTON: A day after US President Donald Trump’s sweeping grant of clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the 2021 attack on the US Capitol, America’s far-right celebrated. Some called for the death of judges who oversaw the trials. Others partied and expressed relief. Some even wept with joy.
Several experts who study extremism said the extraordinary reversal for rioters who committed both violent and nonviolent crimes on Jan. 6, including assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy, will embolden the Proud Boys and other extremist groups such as white supremacists who have openly called for political violence.
In a few pen strokes, Trump reversed the largest US Justice Department investigation and prosecution in history, as he attempted to rewrite what happened during the violent riot on Jan. 6, 2021. As he took office for a second term on Monday, Trump continued to claim, falsely, that the 2020 election was rigged and that he was the rightful winner. He has described the riots as a peaceful “day of love” rather than a melee aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 US presidential election.
“We’re not going to put up with that crap anymore,” Trump said at a post-inauguration rally on Monday, describing the Jan. 6 offenders as “hostages.”
For the convicted Jan. 6 defendants, and for the Trump faithful, the pardons were vindication for unjust persecutions by the president’s political enemies.
Gavin McInnes, the British-born founder of the Proud Boys, said in an interview that he and his friends were celebrating late on Monday by “pounding bourbons and laughing our heads off.”
Before the 2020 election, Trump told the Proud Boys – a violent all-male extremist group – to “stand back and stand by.” Three months later, federal prosecutors say, the group’s leaders plotted the Jan. 6 attack.
“This is a victory for us,” said McInnes, now a right-wing podcaster. If Trump hadn’t given all the Proud Boys clemency, the president would have been “dead to me, and Proud Boys and MAGA and everyone,” he said. “But luckily that didn’t happen.”
In a video posted online shortly after the pardons, convicted rioter Christopher Kuehne, a Marine veteran from Kansas who traveled to Washington with the Proud Boys in January 2021, sobbed: “I am finally free. I don’t even have the words to thank President Trump for what he has done for us.” He was sentenced in February to 75 days in prison and 24 months of supervised release for obstructing law enforcement.
Another Proud Boy told Reuters the pardons would help recruit more members. “A lot of people stayed away from us after there were arrests,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Now they are going to feel like they are bulletproof.”
The riot began after Trump rallied thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Congress certified Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. Inspired by Trump’s baseless rigged-election claims, they swarmed the Capitol, setting off pitched battles with police. Some bludgeoned officers with makeshift weapons that included metal pipes, wooden poles and baseball bats. Prosecutors said the rioters carried firearms, tasers, swords, hatchets and knives.
Four people died on the day of the attack, including a woman protester shot by police. One Capitol Police officer who fought the rioters died the next day. Another 140 officers were injured. Four officers who responded to the riot later committed suicide.
Norm Pattis, a defense attorney who represents three Proud Boys and the leader of the Oath Keepers, a militia, dismissed the notion that the sweeping clemency would somehow lead to an increase in political violence.
“Our politics has always been violent,” Pattis said, pointing to events ranging from the US Civil War to the protests in the 1960s. “And so a few-hours riot at the Capitol is going to warrant years, decades behind bars? For some people, it’s disproportionate, and in my view just repulsive.”
“YOU NEED ACCOUNTABILITY”
Two police officers who were beaten while trying to hold off the crowd said the pardons were a chilling sign that loyalty to Trump is now more important than the rule of law.
“It’s outrageous,” former DC Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone told Reuters. Fanone suffered a heart attack and a brain injury after he was beaten, sprayed with chemical irritants and shocked with a stun gun during the Jan. 6 violence. Fanone, 44, who spent 20 years as a police officer, said the pardons likely will inspire other supporters to violence, “because they believe Donald Trump will grant them a pardon. And why wouldn’t they believe that?”
Aquilino Gonell, a former US Capitol Police sergeant who was injured defending the Capitol, said Trump’s pardons had nothing to do with righting an injustice. Trump and his Republican allies “have lost their claim to having moral high ground when defending our system of governance, the constitution, and supporting the police,” he said.
Among the pardoned were more than 300 who pleaded guilty to either assaulting or obstructing law enforcement, including 69 who admitted to assaulting police with a dangerous or deadly weapon. Trump’s order commuted the sentences of 14 convicted of serious crimes, including Stewart Rhodes, former leader of the Oath Keepers. Trump also issued pardons for others, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, sentenced to 22 years for seditious conspiracy.
Nearly 300 rioters had links to 46 far-right groups or movements, according to a study from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a University of Maryland-based network of scholars that tracks and analyzes terrorist incidents.
Heather Shaner, a Washington lawyer who served as a court-appointed defense attorney for more than 40 of the defendants, called the pardons an attempt to whitewash history. “You need accountability,” she said in an interview. “Only by acknowledging the truth and providing accountability can you move forward.”
Some political extremism experts said the pardons would incentivize pro-Trump vigilantes to commit violence under the belief they’ll receive legal immunity if they act in the interests of Trump. “They are going to feel they can do whatever they want,” Julie Farnam, who was the assistant director of intelligence for the US Capitol Police during the Jan. 6 riots, said of far-right groups. “
They’ll feel like they can because there is no leadership in the United States that tries to stop it,” said Farnam, who now runs a private investigative agency.
Couy Griffin, who was stripped of his seat as a New Mexico county commissioner after he was convicted of trespassing on Capitol grounds, said he instructed his attorney to decline Trump’s pardon, as he appeals his conviction in federal court. In an interview, Griffin said he believes Trump’s enemies distorted the truth about the Capitol riots.
“Was there some violence against police officers? Yes, there was also a lot of violence of police officers against the crowd,” he said, echoing a frequent complaint of Trump supporters.
DEATH THREATS TO JURISTS, POLITICIANS
Many Trump supporters praised the pardons in right-wing online forums. Some threatened those who supported the prosecutions.
On the pro-Trump website Patriots.Win, at least two dozen people expressed hopes for executions of Democrats, judges or law enforcement linked to the Jan. 6 cases. They called for jurists or police to be hanged, pummeled to death, ground up in wood chippers or thrown from helicopters.
“Gather the entire federal judiciary into a stadium. Then have them listen and watch while the judges are beaten to death,” one wrote. “Cut their heads off and put them on pikes outside” the Justice Department.
Others called for killing Trump’s political critics after former House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, an influential Democrat, called the pardons “an outrageous insult.” “If someone successfully whacked Pelosi, I would consider them a hero,” one Patriots.Win commenter wrote. Another wished for Liz Cheney, the Republican who defied Trump by spearheading the congressional investigation of the violence, to “hang.”
One of the most famous rioters, Jake Angeli-Chansley, who became known as the “QAnon Shaman” for wearing a horned hat in the Capitol, took to the social media platform X to celebrate after the pardons. Sentenced to 41 months in prison in 2021, he was released from federal custody in 2023.
“NOW I AM GONNA BUY SOME MOTHAFU*KIN GUNS!!! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!”
22 states sue to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship
- The White House said it’s ready to face the states in court and called the lawsuits “nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance”
Attorneys general from 22 states sued Tuesday to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a century-old immigration practice known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that US-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.
Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies and a constitutional right to citizenship.
The Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights advocates say the question of birthright citizenship is settled law and that while presidents have broad authority, they are not kings.
“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said.
The White House said it’s ready to face the states in court and called the lawsuits “nothing more than an extension of the Left’s resistance.”
“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump,” White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a US citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.
“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says — — if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”
What is birthright citizenship?
At issue in these cases is the right to citizenship granted to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.
It’s enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Most other countries confer citizenship based on whether at least one parent — jus sanguinis, or “right of blood” — is a citizen, or have a modified form of birthright citizenship that may restrict automatic citizenship to children of parents who are on their territory legally.
What does Trump’s order say?
Trump’s order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.
Ratified in 1868 in in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not US citizens or lawful permanent residents, and people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.
It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.
It’s not clear whether the order would retroactively affect birthright citizens. It says that federal agencies “shall” not issue citizenship documents to the people it excludes or accept other documents from states or local governments.
What is the history of the issue?
The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all US-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States until 1924.
In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the US Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.
The issue of birthright citizenship arose in Arizona — one of the states suing to block Trump’s order — during 2011 when Republican lawmakers considered a bill that would have challenged automatic birthright citizenship. Supporters said then that the goal wasn’t to get every state in the nation to enact such a law, but rather to bring the dispute to the courts. The bill never made it out of the Legislature.
What has the reaction to Trump’s order been?
In addition to the states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco, immigrant rights groups are also suing to stop Trump’s order.
Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.
The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in US society to which they are entitled.”
In addition to New Jersey and the two cities, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin joined the lawsuit to stop the order.
Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington filed a separate suit in federal court challenging Trump’s order as well.
