A freedom song sung softly

WASHINGTON—At a gathering with representatives from more than 80 nations this week in the nation’s capital, the U.S. State Department pushed other countries to advance religious freedom. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo still has not answered questions about whether the issue came up during closed-door talks between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin last week in Helsinki.

In a three-hour hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday, senators blasted Pompeo for the administration’s overall lack of candor on Trump’s talks with Putin and the president’s broader policy toward Russia in the face of intelligence pointing to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as well as its incursion in Ukraine, involvement in Syria, and human rights violations.

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the committee, described lawmakers as “filled with serious doubts about this White House and its conduct of American foreign policy.” Critics have previously noted Trump’s reluctance to call out human rights concerns in public appearances alongside world leaders.

Lawmakers did not directly press Pompeo on religious freedom in Russia. When asked in an interview with Australian television ahead of the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom whether Trump had raised religious repression with Putin, Pompeo said the United States has “a lot of issues” with Russia and noted broadly that the talks surrounding religious freedom were designed to push other countries “in the right direction” without directly addressing the situation in Russia.

The United States has expressed concerns about religious minorities in Russia in the past, including the country’s criminalization of Jehovah’s Witnesses and crackdown on missionary activities.

This week’s Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom was billed as a first-of-its-kind meeting in Washington among foreign ministers, government officials, nongovernmental organizations, faith leaders, and members of persecuted groups. The United States hoped participants would announce commitments to advancing religious freedom and protecting religious minorities. Although Pompeo in his remarks at the conference did not directly address abuses in Russia, Vice President Mike Pence did reference the plight of Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses in his speech.

Pompeo, in an op-ed published in USA Today, declared, “Religious freedom is a God-given right to which all people are entitled,” pointing to persecution of minority Christians, Muslims, and others in Iran, China, and Sudan.

Editor’s note: This article has been edited to clarify Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence’s remarks about Russia at the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom.

The clearance question

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Monday said President Donald Trump is exploring how he might revoke the security clearances of several Obama administration officials critical of his policies. The statement has drawn a firestorm of questions about if, and how, a president can take away official access to classified information.

Most security clearances need reauthorization periodically, though they could be revoked if, for an example, an individual is convicted of a crime. For most rank-and-file officials, a clearance remains in effect for a specified amount of time, whether the person needs it or not. Clearances for top-level officials can remain in effect even longer.

Because clearance takes so long to obtain—often several months, even for those with a squeaky-clean record—some individuals are given interim status so they can get to work sooner. The Trump White House has issued interim clearances without ever completing the full process, the Brookings Institute reported.

Huckabee said the individuals whose access to classified information is in question “politicize—and in some cases monetize—their public service and security clearances.” She named six administration officials who are no longer in their positions: former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice, and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. (On Monday, a spokeswoman for McCabe tweeted that the FBI deactivated his clearance when he was terminated earlier this year. It is unclear if any of the other people on Sanders’ list no longer have clearance.)

Evan Lesser, president of ClearanceJobs.com, a searchable network of security-cleared job openings, told me that top officials are typically allowed to keep their clearance if they work in defense, intelligence, or homeland security.

“They keep it because it’s entirely possible there needs to be some conversations around continuity between administrations, or the former officials may be called back quickly in times of emergency for a consult,” Lesser said. “In times of emergency you want them readily available.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a researcher and defense expert with the Brookings Institution, said former officials might also have current roles with other entities that require clearance.

“Previous officials often are still on various boards or have relationships with private companies doing approved business with the government,” he said. “It is a reasonable thing to debate if too many do. However, it is not reasonable for Trump to selectively target his political foes.” —Laura Finch

A deeper shade of blue

More than 60 Democrats from the U.S. House of Representatives last week said they would fight to implement a single-payer healthcare system in the United States.

“If you live in America, you’ve got a right to affordable quality healthcare, period,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., one of the founders of the newly launched Medicare for All caucus.

Two-thirds of Democratic representatives have already signed on as co-sponsors to a bill by the same name, providing “all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free healthcare.”

The caucus formation comes during a growing shift to the far left in the Democratic Party. It played out in the primary victory of self-described democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over longtime Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y. It’s also a part of the movement to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, formerly an extremist position, which has gained mainstream support in the party and launched protests across the country. And on Tuesday, The Washington Post reported House Democrats were planning to propose a bill that would guarantee two free years of community college to students in every state.

But some Democrats don’t believe this new focus on single-payer healthcare helps their chances in the 2018 midterm elections.

“Every Democrat is being asked, ‘Do you support this or do you not?’ and it’s becoming a political wedge in an election year,” said Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y. “And I think we should be focusing on the terrible things that are happening under this administration right now.”

Republicans are already preparing to use this movement as a weapon in November, seeing it as an opportunity to paint Democratic candidates as extremists.

“It would break Medicare,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said of Medicare for All. “And it would end any private insurance as we know it.” —Kyle Ziemnick