Modified bill that seeks to create military impact zones intends to build communication, senator says
Feb. 14—BISMARCK — A bill that seeks to create a commission to "harmonize" land use around North Dakota military installations isn't intended to build barriers, but rather to stimulate communication and collaboration between military branches and nearby towns, counties and townships, according to the senator who introduced it.
Sen. Jeff Barta, R-Grand Forks, spoke about Senate Bill 2398 for more than 15 minutes during a meeting of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee. He stressed that the bill is focused on improving the performance of the military crews and missions that call North Dakota home.
"This is about the security, safety and the mission success of our bases," Barta told the committee.
Later during the meeting, he said, "this is about bringing those people together and how we collate resources and have that shared information to make the best decision for each of those localities (municipalities, townships and counties)."
Robustly amended from its original version, SB 2398 was discussed for more than 35 minutes overall during Thursday's legislative committee hearing. In addition to the creation of "impact zones" around four North Dakota military installations, the bill intends to form a military compatibility commission that would "harmonize land use in military impact zones, prevent encroachment of military installations in military impact zones and promote the sustainability of military operations in the state."
In its original form, the wording of SB 2398 said the commission would "oversee and coordinate land use in military impact zones." (Emphasis was added by the Herald to highlight the words that were changed and then replaced with harmonize).
Also, 2398's original version laid out specific geographic circles around North Dakota military installations, including 25 miles around Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force Base and 5 miles around Camp Grafton (South) and the Cavalier Space Force Station. In the amended version, all of those distances are crossed out, replaced with wording that specifies "the outer boundary of each zone must be established by an assessment in a compatible use study and contingent upon the missions of each base."
The bill originally spelled out that the commission would include the governor, or a designee of the governor; a member of the state Public Service Commission, or a designee; a representative from each county, township and city within the boundaries of an impact zone; and, on a voluntary basis, the commander of each installation, or a designee. That has been changed to the governor; one representative selected by the North Dakota Association of Counties who is a member of the association; one representative selected by the North Dakota Township Officers Association who is a member of the association; one representative selected by the North Dakota League of Cities who is a member of the association; and, on a voluntary basis, the commander of each installation or a designee thereof.
The members of the Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee did not vote Thursday to suggest passage or failure of the bill. That will come later.
Five people testified in favor of SB 2398 during Thursday's committee hearing, including Barta; Fred Brooks, regional environmental coordinator of the U.S. Air Force; and representatives from the Minot Area Chamber and Economic Development Corp., the North Dakota League of Cities and the North Dakota Association of Counties. Five people — including Barta, Brooks and Bruce Gjovig, of Grand Forks — submitted written testimony in favor of the bill, while Grand Forks City Council President Dana Sande submitted written testimony that was listed as "neutral." There was no written testimony against the plan.
Earlier in the week, the Grand Forks City Council voted 6-0 to not support SB 2398. Sande's letter to the committee — written on behalf of the council — clarified that council members "support the concept of military impact zones and the idea of a military compatibility commission," but "our concern is regarding the size of the military impact zone."
Specifically, Sande wrote, the originally declared 25-mile circle around Grand Forks Air Force Base would be "an extremely large area that will impact all land use decisions in the city of Grand Forks and the ET zone around the city." He said the city would support an amendment that would exclude the city and the 2-mile extra-territorial zone, which Sande described as a 2-mile buffer beyond city limits.
"Do we support the Grand Forks Air Force Base and their current and future missions? Yes. Do we support creating a plan so potential encroachment on the base is addressed? Yes," Sande wrote. "If the Legislature can amend and fine-tune the issues addressed in this testimony, can we support this bill? Yes."
Gjovig, a member of the Air and Space Force Civic Leader Program, wrote that encroachment on bases — particularly land, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum encroachment — can significantly affect security and mission viability.
"Current encroachment legislation only deals with land encroachment, but airspace and electromagnetic spectrum encroachment is just as crucial for military operations," he wrote.
At present, he wrote, North Dakota lacks "specific state-level legislation to protect military installations from encroachment and lacks a coordinating entity (formal point of contact) to act as a liaison and clearinghouse with developers, local government and others to resolve potential conflicts."
SB 2398 has a connection to a past controversy in Grand Forks. In November 2021, it was announced that the China-based agribusiness company Fufeng planned to build a wet corn mill on the north side of Grand Forks. Among the concerns that were raised — along with perceived issues related to cost to the community, encroachment on nearby landowners and environmental concerns — was that the mill would be a national security threat, due to its proximity to Grand Forks Air Force Base.
In early 2023, after the U.S. Air Force issued a statement saying it was indeed concerned with the Chinese plant being built within 20 miles of the base, the city terminated all agreements and discussions with Fufeng, effectively ending the project.
During Thursday's committee meeting, Barta said the goal of SB 2398 is to help avoid potential threats — intentional and unintentional, foreign and domestic.
"This can help us mitigate some unforeseen circumstances and some unintentional consequences of things being put up that will nonetheless be an enemy to our military mission. Those are on the domestic side," he said. "It's not that someone is intentionally doing it, but when we have a development come in, we don't know the impact it will have until we start asking those questions."
He said the 25-mile radius around bases — included in the bill's original version — "went away in a hurry" because it would have created too many limitations.
So, Barta said, rather than picking some arbitrary number, "we need it to be specific to the missions." Development within the designated area would be subject to review for any potential interference with radar communications and flight operations.
Toward the end of his testimony Thursday, Barta said the goal is to enhance the regulatory framework within the state to protect military installations and to "support the local governments in making informed land use decisions that align with military needs."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump
WASHINGTON — President Trump really wants to fly on an upgraded Air Force One — but making that happen could depend on whether he's willing to cut corners with security. As government lawyers sort out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, another crucial conversation is unfolding about modifying the plane so it's safe for the American president. Installing capabilities equivalent to the decades-old 747s now used as Air Force One would almost certainly consign the project to a similar fate as Boeing's replacement initiative, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told lawmakers Thursday that those security modifications would cost less than $400 million but provided no details. Satisfying Trump's desire to use the new plane before the end of his term could require leaving out some of those precautions, however. A White House official said Trump wants the Qatari jet ready as soon as possible while adhering to security standards. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not provide details on equipment issues or the timeline. Trump has survived two assassination attempts, and Iran allegedly also plotted to kill him, so he's well aware of the danger he faces. However, he seems willing to take some chances with security, particularly when it comes to communications. For example, he likes to keep his personal phone handy despite the threat of hacks. He boasted recently that the government got the jet 'for free,' saying, 'We need it as Air Force One until the other ones are done.' Here's a look at what it would take to make the Qatari plane into a presidential transport: Air Force One is the call sign for any plane that's carrying the president. The first aircraft to get the designation was a propeller-powered C-54 Skymaster, which ferried Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference in 1945. It featured a conference room with a bulletproof window. Things are a lot more complicated these days. Boeing has spent years stripping down and rebuilding two 747s to replace the versions that have carried presidents for more than three decades. The project is slated to cost more than $5.3 billion and may not be finished before Trump leaves office. A 2021 report made public through the Freedom of Information Act outlines the unclassified requirements for the replacement 747s under construction. At the top of the list — survivability and communications. The government decided more than a decade ago that the new planes had to have four engines so they could remain airborne if one or two fail, said Deborah Lee James, who was Air Force secretary at the time. That creates a challenge because 747s are no longer manufactured, which could make spare parts harder to come by. Air Force One also has to have the highest level of classified communications, anti-jamming capabilities and external protections against foreign surveillance, so the president can securely command military forces and nuclear weapons during a national emergency. It's an extremely sensitive and complex system, including video, voice and data transmissions. James said there are anti-missile measures and shielding against radiation or an electromagnetic pulse that could be caused by a nuclear blast. 'The point is, it remains in flight no matter what,' she said. If the Qatari plane is retrofitted to presidential standards, it could cost $1.5 billion and take years, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that aren't publicly available. Testifying before Congress, Meink discounted such estimates, arguing that some of the costs associated with retrofitting the Qatari plane would have been spent anyway as the Air Force moves to build the long-delayed new presidential planes, including buying aircraft for training and to have spares available if needed. In response, Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) said that based on the contract costs for the planes that the Air Force is building, it would cost about $1 billion to strip down the Qatar plane, install encrypted communications, harden its defenses and make other required upgrades. James said simply redoing the wiring means 'you'd have to break that whole thing wide open and almost start from scratch.' Trump, as commander in chief, could waive some of these requirements. He could decide to skip shielding systems from an electromagnetic pulse, leaving his communications more vulnerable in case of a disaster but shaving time off the project. After all, Boeing has already scaled back its original plans for the new 747s. Their range was trimmed by 1,200 nautical miles, and the ability to refuel while airborne was scrapped. Paul Eckloff, a former leader of protection details at the Secret Service, expects the president would get the final say. 'The Secret Service's job is to plan for and mitigate risk,' he said. 'It can never eliminate it.' If Trump does waive some requirements, James said that should be kept under wraps because 'you don't want to advertise to your potential adversaries what the vulnerabilities of this new aircraft might be.' It's unlikely that Trump will want to skimp on the plane's appearance. He keeps a model of a new Air Force One in the Oval Office, complete with a darker color scheme that echoes his personal jet instead of the light blue design that's been used for decades. Trump toured the Qatari plane in February when it was parked at an airport near Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort. Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin was there too. The U.S. official said the jet needs maintenance but not more than what would be expected of a four-engine plane of its complexity. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it would be irresponsible to put the president and national security equipment aboard the Qatari plane 'without knowing that the aircraft is fully capable of withstanding a nuclear attack.' 'It's a waste of taxpayer dollars,' she said. Meanwhile, Boeing's project has been hampered by stress corrosion cracks on the planes and excessive noise in the cabins from the decompression system, among other issues that have delayed delivery, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year. Boeing referred questions to the Air Force, which said in a statement that it's working with the aircraft manufacturer to find ways to accelerate the delivery of at least one of the 747s. Even so, the aircraft will have to be tested and flown in real-world conditions to ensure no other issues. James said it remains to be seen how Trump would handle any of those challenges. 'The normal course of business would say there could be delays in certifications,' she said. 'But things seem to get waived these days when the president wants it.' Copp and Megerian write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
A daughter with DACA, a mother without papers, and a goodbye they can't bear
Michelle Valdes' mom thinks she sees immigration agents everywhere: in the lobby of the building where she cares for elderly clients, at the local outlet mall, on downtown corners. The fear is constant. Driving to work, going to the store —just leaving the house feels too risky for her. At work, while she cooks and cleans in her clients' homes, she listens as stories of immigration detentions, deportations and constantly changing laws and policies play loudly in English from the TV. The 67-year-old undocumented Colombian national who has lived in the United States for more than a third of her life has stopped driving completely, opting for Uber, and ducking down in the backseat when she sees police officers. As a Jehovah's Witness, she has chosen not to do her door-to-door ministry and only attends church on Zoom. But what keeps her up at night these days is that she will soon go without seeing her daughter, likely for close to a decade. She is preparing to leave the United States after 23 years, leaving behind her 31-year-old daughter, a DACA recipient or 'Dreamer' who came to the United States when she was 8 and is still in the process of gaining her green card. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is a federal program that protects undocumented people who came to the U.S. as children from deportation. 'I don't want to feel like I'm going to be spending two months in some detention center in the middle of God knows where, where none of my family members see me,' she said in Spanish during an interview with the Herald. She asked not to use her name for this story because she fears she could be targeted. 'I'm done,' she said. Her daughter's immigration situation is also precarious, even though she is married to a U.S. citizen. His family, from Cuba, got lucky when they won the visa lottery. But her family did not have such luck. Valdes' family did what immigrants often do: They fled danger, asked for political asylum, hired lawyers and filed paperwork. And they lost. Last year, only 19.3% of Colombian asylum cases were approved, according to researchers at Syracuse University. Even in 2006, when violence was at a very high point in Colombia, only 32% of asylum cases were approved. Their family's story reveals the toll a constantly changing and exceedingly complicated immigration system has on families who tried to 'do the right thing' and legalize their status. Now, under President Trump's administration, which has ramped up enforcement and the optics around it, being undocumented has become even more hazardous. People who have been living and working in the shadows in the United States are now being forced to decide if the reward of seeking a better life is still worth the risk. And those who are following the rules are afraid the rules will keep changing. The mother has already started packing boxes. Denied asylum Valdes' mom had never heard of the American Dream. She said she had never even heard the phrase 'el sueño americano' before coming to the United States. The family fled Colombia in 2002, leaving behind comfort and status. Valdes' mother had been an architect in Cartagena, a city on the South American nation's Caribbean coast. The family had a driver, a cook and a nanny. But violence by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, the rebel group known as FARC, was encroaching on their lives: armed robbery at their home, threatening calls and the kidnapping of her cousin, a wealthy businessperson. The family was forced to pay a ransom for his release. The early 2000s in Colombia, under President Andrés Pastrana, were years of intense violence by guerrilla gangs such as the FARC, who targeted wealthier Colombians. 'They would just pick up anybody who they believed they could get money from,' said Valdes. Her aunt would often call Valdes' mom from Florida, telling her their family would be safer here. The family arrived on a tourist visa in 2002, found a lawyer and applied for asylum. It was denied in 2004. Under U.S. immigration policy, people who have suffered persecution due to factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership to a social group, or political opinion can apply for asylum. It must be filed within a year of arrival in the United States. Valdes' family's interview did not go well and they were placed in removal proceedings. They appealed and in 2006 took the case to the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals. The family's asylum application claimed that Valdes' mom would be killed by the FARC guerilla gang if she returned to Colombia, in connection with her cousin's kidnapping. But the court ultimately found holes in her case, and said her fear is not well founded and that she failed to prove that she would be in danger if she returned to Colombia. Their final motion was denied in part because it was filed 45 days late, according to the court filing. Valdes was just 11 years old when the courts denied her family's final plea to stay in the United States. The family was issued removal orders. 'I feel like I made a mistake asking for asylum,' said Valdes' mother. 'I wasn't guided well because I was scared and didn't know what to do.' She says predatory lawyers charged her close to $40,000 but never told her the truth about her odds of winning the case. 'It's pure show,' she said in Spanish. 'I believed they would help, but they did nothing.' By then, Valdes and her brothers were attending public schools in West Palm Beach, a right undocumented children have because of a supreme court ruling which passed narrowly in the early '80s. 'I just kind of poured my whole life into school, just to kind of distract myself from other things going on in life, specifically with immigration,' she said. In fifth grade, she won the science fair. At Roosevelt Middle School she was in the pre-med program and the national junior honor society. She always had A's and B's in school. But when her middle school national honor society was invited to Australia, she had to stay behind, unable to travel because she was undocumented. At Suncoast Community High School, she was invited to sing in a choir concert in Europe, but again, she could not go. In 2007, ICE detained Valdes' parents and her eldest brother. Her other brother and Valdes were picked up from school and reunited with their parents at the ICE office. Valdes' mom said the officer told her that since the family had a removal order, they needed to deport at least one person to prove they completed their quota for the day. But to this day, Valdes and her mother can't fully explain why the father was deported but they were released. Was it luck? Did the ICE officers sympathize with their family? Then 13, Valdes remembers standing in the Miami immigration office as agents took her father away. 'He was wearing jeans, a tan coat and a gray-blue fisherman's hat,' she said. 'What I remember the most is that there was, like, some sort of feeling that I got, that I knew that I was never gonna see him again.' He was deported in January of 2007, when Valdes was in seventh grade. It was the only semester she ever failed in school, she said. Her father died at 69 in Colombia in 2022. A petition for him to get legal status and return to the U.S., filed on his behalf of his son from a previous marriage, was approved a year after his death, said Valdes. '17 years too late,' she said, in tears. DACA as a lifeline In 2012, Valdes and her mother were preparing to leave the United States for good. Flights were booked. Boxes mailed. Then, just 14 days before departure, President Obama announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The program was meant to protect children like Valdes, who came to the U.S. at a young age. Valdes was 18. Her phone lit up with messages from people in her community who knew she was undocumented. She applied that October. As a 'Dreamer,' or DACA recipient, she's protected from deportation and able to work legally — but can't travel outside the country. Her two older brothers, Ricardo and Jean Paul, had already left the country by then. After attending public schools and graduating from high school, the brothers could not attend college or find work. So in 2011, they returned to Colombia, and their mother sent them money to attend university. They both still live there and haven't seen their mom in 14 years. Valdes' situation was slightly better, but without legal permanent residency, she didn't qualify for most scholarships. The one scholarship she did get was a $4,000 scholarship from the Global Education Center at Palm Beach State, but $1,500 was deducted in taxes because she was considered a foreign student. Starting in 2014, Florida universities provided in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students under certain conditions. But because Valdes didn't enroll in college within a year of graduating from high school, she lost access to the waiver. That waiver was recently canceled in Florida for undocumented students, and starting July 1, at least 6,500 DACA recipients in Florida enrolled in public universities will have to pay the out-of-state tuition rate. 'When people asked me what I wanted for my birthday, I would ask for money to pay my tuition,' she said. Throughout those years, people would come to Valdes asking for help filling out their work permit applications, DACA applications and other legal forms, and they would say, 'Wow, you are so good at it.' Although she never wanted to do anything law or immigration related, she kept getting pulled in that direction, and decided to get her paralegal certificate, Valdes said. She now works at an immigration law office. Her plan is to go to law school after getting hands on training. 'I always thought: When I turn 18, I'm an adult — 'why am I still tied to my mom's case?' ' she said. 'But nobody explained it.' At her job in the law office, she finally learned the full truth of her case. Her name is still listed on her mother's asylum application — the case that was denied in 2006. So she still had a final removal order connected to her name. That case, and its order of removal, still haunts her. Although she's married to a U.S. citizen, it will take her years to adjust her status to get a green card and permanent residency status. The process will involve her husband filing petitions and waivers explaining that it would be an extreme hardship for him if she were deported. Valdes will have to leave the country and re-enter. In all, the process could take around eight years. Former president Joe Biden had a program to help people like Valdes, whose family is of 'mixed-status' but the program was shut down by Republicans. Immigration attorneys say there are fewer and fewer pathways for people married to U.S. citizens to legalize their status. The roadblocks and complications frustrate Valdes to tears. Valdes said that it is not fair that 'under our immigration system, a child, at such a young age, has to suffer the consequences of the parents' mistakes.' 'No es justo, no es justo,' she said, crying. It's not fair. But immigration laws, enforcement and policies are changing every day. 'People say 'get in line, get in line, get in line,' and then you get in line, and it's like, 'Oh, too bad, you don't apply with that anymore, or we're just going to change the laws. Or, you know, you aged out, or you didn't submit by this day,' said Valdes. In the past weeks, ICE agents across the nation have even begun detaining people as they exit immigration courthouses. Some are individuals with final orders of deportation like Valdes and her mom. Just this week, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump can revoke humanitarian parole for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. President Trump has spoken favorably of DACA recipients, but nonetheless, 'Dreamers' still have to reapply every two years, and there is no guarantee their right to legally be in the U.S. will not be revoked. Immigration attorneys say DACA could be the next program to be shut down by the Supreme Court. 'How shaky is DACA? How solid is it?' Valdes asked. Same fear, different country Valdes' mom says she now feels the same fear in the United States as she did in Colombia — maybe worse. 'I'm scared. Terrified,' she said. 'I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, always on alert.' For years, she tried to hold on. But after 23 years, she's tired of living in limbo. Valdes and her mom try not to think much about the fact that they are leaving each other, focusing more on the present and getting through each day. Valdes' mom says her ultimate goal was always for her daughter to get an education in the United States, and now that her daughter has a job, a husband, and is planting roots, she feels like she can go and let her daughter live her life. She left Colombia because she was 'tired of being followed. I was tired of being paranoid. I was tired of never being able to have my freedom, to just live, because I was always so scared. And fast forward, 23 years later, I'm just in the same boat in a different country,' she said. The hardest part for Valdes is imagining being pregnant and then giving birth without her mom by her side. But, she says, 'Now I tell her, I totally understand. It's your turn to finish living your life, Mom. I want her to be at peace, and I want her to rest.' As her mother prepares to leave, Michelle is left with the frustration of knowing that there's nothing she can do. 'I am still helpless. I still can't help her. I still can't help myself. It's a looming darkness you carry every day,' said Valdes.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court hands AP an incremental loss in its attempt to regain its access to Trump events
Digging deep into free-speech precedents in recent American history, a federal appeals panel handed The Associated Press an incremental loss on Friday in its continuing battle with the Trump administration over access by its journalists to cover presidential events. By a 2-1 margin, judges on the three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington granted Trump a stay in enforcement of a lower-court ruling that the administration had improperly punished the AP for the content of its speech — in this case not renaming the Gulf of Mexico to Trump's liking. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. The decision itself was aimed only at whether to continue the stay. But the majority and dissenting opinions together totaled 55 pages and delved deeply into First Amendment precedents and questions about whether places like the Oval Office and Air Force One were, in effect, private spaces. Trump posted about the decision on the Truth Social platform shortly after the decision: 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' And White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, one of the defendants in the AP's lawsuit, posted on X after the decision came down that it was a "VICTORY!" and would allow more media to access the president beyond the 'failing legacy media.' She added: "And by the way, @AP, it's still the Gulf of America." An AP spokesman said that 'we are disappointed in the court's decisions and are reviewing our options.' One possibility is seeking an expedited review of the full case on its merits. President given wide latitude by court majority Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao agreed in Friday's ruling with Trump's assertion that it's up to the president to decide who gets into spaces like the Oval Office — and he can take into account the viewpoint of journalists he allows. That's related to AP's assertion that the ban amounts to a legal principle known as 'viewpoint discrimination.' 'If the president sits down for an interview with (Fox News') Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with (MSNBC's) Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' In deciding on a stay, the judges considered the likelihood of which side would win the case when Trump's full appeal is taken up, probably not for a few months. In that situation, a different panel of appeals court judges will hear it. Katsas and Rao were both appointed to the federal court by Trump in his first term. Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, who dissented on Friday, was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Pillard wrote that there's no principled basis for exempting the Oval Office from a requirement that a president not engage in viewpoint discrimination. There's nothing to stop the majority's reasoning from being applied to the press corps as a whole, she wrote. In that case, it's not hard to see future Republican White Houses limiting the press covering them to the likes of Fox News, and Democrats to MSNBC, she wrote. 'More to the point, if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike,' Pillard wrote. The bumpiness between Trump and the press is longstanding Since the original ruling, the White House has installed a rotation system for access to small events. AP photographers are usually included, but text reporters are allowed in much less frequently. A study earlier this year showed Trump has spoken to the press more often in the first 100 days of his administration than any of his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. But he's much more likely to speak to a small group of reporters called into the Oval Office than at a formal briefing or press conference — to which AP journalists have been admitted. Through Leavitt, the White House has opened up to many more conservative news outlets with a friendly attitude toward the president. In her dissent, Pillard rejected the assertion by the White House and her colleagues that the president suffers damage if news outlets not aligned with his views are permitted into certain restricted spaces to watch the government function. The majority though, insisted that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has wide latitude in that respect. Wrote Rao: 'The Oval Office is the President's office, over which he has absolute control and discretion to exclude the public or members of the press." ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
