WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Monday the United States had signed another portion of an immigration deal with Mexico that would need to be ratified by Mexican lawmakers.
FILE PHOTO: Trucks cross the borderline into the U.S. and into Mexico at the World Trade Bridge, as seen from Laredo, Texas U.S., June 3, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
He did not provide details but threatened tariffs if Mexico’s Congress did not approve the plan.
“We have fully signed and documented another very important part of the Immigration and Security deal with Mexico, one that the U.S. has been asking about getting for many years. It will be revealed in the not too distant future and will need a vote by Mexico’s legislative body,” Trump tweeted.
“We do not anticipate a problem with the vote but, if for any reason the approval is not forthcoming, tariffs will be reinstated.”
Last month, Trump threatened 5% tariffs on Mexican goods to be imposed on Monday. The duties would increase every month until they reached 25% in October, unless Mexico stopped illegal immigration across its border with Mexico.
On Friday, the tariffs were called off, after the United States and Mexico announced an agreement on immigration. The joint communique issued by the two countries provided few details.
Critics have said there have been no new major commitments to slow the migration of Central Americans to the United States.
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The agreement would expedite a program known as the Migration Protection Protocols, which sends people seeking asylum in the United States to wait in Mexico as their cases are processed.
That program, announced in December, would be expanded across the entire U.S.-Mexico border under the terms of the agreement, according to the State Department.
The deal would also send the Mexican National Guard police force to its own southern border, where many Central Americans enter Mexico.
Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard wrote in a tweet on Monday morning that he would brief the Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on the details of the agreement.
Ebrard said Lopez Obrador would discuss the deal during his morning news conference.
The New York Times reported over the weekend that most of the deal announced on Friday had already been settled in March. Top Democratic senators echoed the report, saying many aspects of the agreement were not new.
On Sunday, Trump defended the deal, saying there were more details in it that had not yet been made public. He attacked the Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper again on Monday, calling the report a “FRAUD.”
Reporting by Makini Brice; additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, editing by Larry King and Chizu Nomiyama
Even as he again hailed his administration's last-minute, much-heralded deal on Friday with Mexico as a "successful agreement" to address illegal immigration at the southern border, President Trump on Sunday bluntly suggested he might again seek to impose punishing tariffs on Mexico if its cooperation falls short in the future.
The president and other key administration officials also sharply disputed a New York Times report claiming the Friday deal "largely" had been negotiated months ago, and hinted that not all major details of the new arrangement have yet been made public.
In its report, the Times acknowledged that Mexico's pledge to deploy up to 6,000 national guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala "was larger than their previous pledge," and that Mexico's "agreement to accelerate the Migrant Protection Protocols could help reduce what Mr. Trump calls 'catch and release' of migrants in the United States by giving the country a greater ability to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico."
U.S. officials had been working to expand the migrant program, which already has led to the return of about 10,000 people, and said Friday's agreement was a major push in that direction. Nevertheless, the Times, citing unnamed officials from Mexico and the U.S., reported that the concessions already had been hashed out in a more limited form.
"Another false report in the Failing @nytimes," Trump wrote. "We have been trying to get some of these Border Actions for a long time, as have other administrations, but were not able to get them, or get them in full, until our signed agreement with Mexico. Additionally, and for many years Mexico was not being cooperative on the Border in things we had, or didn’t have, and now I have full confidence, especially after speaking to their President yesterday, that they will be very cooperative and want to get the job properly done."
That might have been a reference to discussions about Mexico becoming a "safe third country," which would make it harder for asylum-seekers who pass through the country to claim refuge in the U.S. The idea, which Mexico has long opposed, was discussed during negotiations, but Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard has said his country did not agree to it, even as Mexican diplomats said negotiations on the topic will continue.
And, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," insisted "all of it is new," including the agreement to dispatch around 6,000 National Guard troops — a move Mexico has described as an "acceleration."
A Mexican Army soldier near an immigration checkpoint in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico, this past Saturday. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)
"This is the first time we've heard anything like this kind of number of law enforcement being deployed in Mexico to address migration, not just at the southern border but also on the transportation routes to the northern border and in coordinated patrols in key areas along our southwest border," he said, adding that "people can disagree with the tactics" but that "Mexico came to the table with real proposals" that he said will be effective, if implemented.
The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico headed off a 5 percent tax on all Mexican goods that Trump had threatened to impose starting Monday. The tariffs were set to rise to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019.
But, Trump suggested Sunday, the threat of tariffs is not completely removed.
"Importantly, some things not mentioned in [yesterday's] press release, one in particular, were agreed upon," Trump continued. "That will be announced at the appropriate time. There is now going to be great cooperation between Mexico & the USA, something that didn’t exist for decades. However, if for some unknown reason there is not, we can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs - But I don’t believe that will be necessary. The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged @CNN, will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!"
Bernie Sanders, for example, derided Trump on Sunday for purportedly picking unnecessary and economically costly fights with a variety of countries.
"I think what the world is tired of and what I am tired of is a president who consistently goes to war, verbal war with our allies, whether it is Mexico, whether it is Canada," Sanders said.
But, in a tense moment on CNN's "State of the Union," Sanders struggled when asked by host Dana Bash why he had called the situation at the southern border a "fake crisis" engineered by the White House.
"Immigration officials have arrested or encountered more than 144,000 migrants at the southern border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years," Bash began. "Border facilities are dangerously overcrowded; migrants are actually standing on toilets to get space to breathe. How is that not a crisis?"
Sanders responded that the president has been "demonizing" immigrants.
Beto O'Rourke, in a separate interview, conceded only that Trump may have helped accelerate the implementation of a previously existing arrangement.
"I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago," O'Rourke said on ABC News’ "This Week." "They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has."
Mexican officials, meanwhile, insisted that they would remain engaged in active negotiations with the Trump administration.
"We want to continue to work with the U.S. very closely on the different challenges that we have together, and one urgent one at this moment is immigration," Mexican diplomat Martha Barcena said Sunday.
She told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the countries' "joint declaration of principles... gives us the base for the road map that we have to follow in the incoming months on immigration and cooperation on asylum issues and development in Central America."
Barcena added that the U.S. wanted to see the number of migrants crossing the border to return to levels seen in 2018.
Fox News' Bret Baier, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The Moscow Rules looks at how CIA officers evaded the suffocating security environment during the Soviet era.
Courtesy of PublicAffairs
hide caption
toggle caption
Courtesy of PublicAffairs
As a young government employee in 1975, Marti Peterson was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. She loved the social scene and it earned her a nickname.
"I was known as 'Party Marti' because I was out socializing with the Marine guards, with younger secretaries, the single, social life," Peterson said. "We did drink our share of Carlsberg beer."
Peterson was actually with the CIA — the first woman officer sent to Moscow. Her "cover" was to be a fun-loving clerical worker, someone Soviet security could safely ignore as it obsessively tracked actual and suspected CIA officers.
Her mission was to handle one of the most valuable Soviet sources the CIA had ever cultivated, a Foreign Ministry worker who saw the incoming cables from every Soviet embassy in the world.
"So we got a huge insight into what the Soviets were planning, what their intentions were and what their negotiating points were before we even sat down with them," she said.
Peterson and her source — code name TRIGON — communicated by dead drops, in the dead of night, often at a Moscow park.
She would place a fake log with messages inside. He would show up an hour later and drop a rusty can or an old, oily glove. Tucked inside was film of top secret documents he'd photographed with a miniature camera.
Peterson never met him. And she never saw those photos — but U.S. presidents did.
"We just knew that we were picking up gold off the street," said Peterson, now retired and living in Wilmington, N.C.
Jonna and Tony Mendez each served as chief of disguise at the CIA during their long careers at the spy agency. Much of their work involved working with CIA officers in Moscow, as detailed in their new book, The Moscow Rules.
Courtesy of PublicAffairs
hide caption
"You are never alone. Don't trust anyone. Not the little lady in the restroom who's sweeping out the stalls. Not the flower girl in the corner. You just didn't trust anyone in Moscow," she said.
The CIA considered it too risky to recruit Soviet citizens inside the communist country. They were recruited when they were abroad, and when they returned to the Soviet Union, communication was never direct.
"In Moscow for many, many years, we never met face-to-face because we thought it was too dangerous," she added.
Chiefs of disguise
At separate points, Tony and Jonna Mendez each served as chief of disguise at the CIA. They were part of the Office of Technical Services.
"We were the equivalent of 'Q' in the James Bond movies," she said.
Tony Mendez, who died in January, is best-known for a previous book he wrote, Argo, which became the Oscar-winning movie of the same name. Ben Affleck portrayed Mendez, who guided trapped American diplomats out of revolutionary Iran in 1980.
The couple was never based in Moscow, but traveled there to help CIA officers operate in the city.
Jonna Mendez, the former chief of disguise at the CIA, explains how to hide one's identity.
YouTube
Tracking CIA officers
The main Soviet security agency, then known as the KGB, made that as difficult as possible, said Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB officer who became a critic of the Soviet system. He now lives outside Washington, D.C.
"The Soviet KGB was a strong, powerful organization," said Kalugin, who was one of its top officers in a nearly 30-year career.
To escape KGB surveillance, Tony Mendez developed one technique called "disguise on the run."
"He had started as a businessman in a raincoat and a briefcase," said Jonna Mendez. He turned the raincoat inside out, and it became a pink, woman's overcoat. He pulled up his pant legs, revealing black stockings. He put on a mask and a wig of an elderly woman. The briefcase sprouted wheels.
In just 45 seconds, "he ended up [as] an old woman in a pink coat wearing a shawl with gray hair coming out, pushing a grocery cart. And it was just kind of an amazing transformation," she said.
Tony Mendez worked with some of Hollywood top makeup artists to refine his methods of deception and disguise.
Jonna Mendez would develop the tiny roles of film provided by the agency's Soviet spies who used the CIA's miniature cameras hidden in items like pens or lipstick cases.
"You'd think about the people that had risked their lives to get that information on film and you'd just be so careful," she recalled. "Every time you did it, I mean, your heart would just pound."
Their book looks at the Soviet era, and some of the spycraft may be a bit dated.
But the espionage game carries on, Oleg Kalugin said. Many years ago, he was Vladimir Putin's boss at the KGB, and said Putin's background is essential to understanding today's Russia.
"Putin brought back some of the worst sides of the Soviet regime," said Kalugin, now 84. "As a former KGB guy, his psychology is based on the old traditions of the Soviet system."
A source is uncovered
Speaking of the Soviet system, whatever happened to "Party Marti" Peterson and the Soviet source she handled?
After almost two years in Moscow, Peterson went to the bridge one night in the summer of 1977 and hid a package for him. It included money, emerald jewelry and a new camera.
CIA officer Marti Peterson is apprehended by Soviet security officers in 1977 in Moscow after she placed a package for her Soviet source. Peterson didn't know it at the time, but the source, one of the most valuable the CIA had ever cultivated in the Soviet Union, had been uncovered and killed himself three weeks earlier.
H. Keith Melton Collection at the International Spy Museum
hide caption
toggle caption
H. Keith Melton Collection at the International Spy Museum
As she walked away, she was "accosted by these three men who grabbed me," she said. "They knew exactly where the package was and there was a whole van full of people in suits."
They were KGB, and they took Peterson to their notorious headquarters in central Moscow, Lubyanka.
She learned that her source TRIGON — whose real name was Alexandar Ogorodnik — had been uncovered by Soviet security three weeks earlier.
When confronted, Ogorodnik said he would write a confession — but only with his own pen.
"This pen contained a natural poison the CIA had provided to him, fulfilling his request to have a way to commit suicide, which he did at that time," said Peterson.
After she was detained, CIA officer Marti Peterson was taken to the KGB headquarters, Lubyanka, in central Moscow. She was held for four hours, and kicked out of the Soviet Union the next day. She went on to work another 26 years for the CIA.
H. Keith Melton Collection at the International Spy Museum
hide caption
toggle caption
H. Keith Melton Collection at the International Spy Museum
Peterson was kicked out of the Soviet Union the next day. But she worked another 26 years with the CIA before retiring, and now lives in Wilmington, N.C.
Before all these stories could be published in The Moscow Rules, Tony and Jonna Mendez had to submit their manuscript to the CIA for review. It's a lengthy process that came as Tony's health was declining from Parkinson's disease.
The CIA "knew that Tony was not well," Jonna Mendez said. "I sent a note in, saying, 'Could you consider pulling our manuscript and putting it on the top of your pile. Because I'd really like for him to know it's OK.' "
The CIA gave its approval this past January. The next day, Tony Mendez died.
Greg Myre is a national security correspondent. Follow him @gregmyre1.
Even as he again hailed his administration's last-minute, much-heralded deal on Friday with Mexico as a "successful agreement" to address illegal immigration at the southern border, President Trump on Sunday bluntly suggested he might again seek to impose punishing tariffs on Mexico if its cooperation falls short in the future.
The president and other key administration officials also sharply disputed a New York Times report claiming the Friday deal "largely" had been negotiated months ago, and hinted that not all major details of the new arrangement have yet been made public.
In its report, the Times acknowledged that Mexico's pledge to deploy up to 6,000 national guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala "was larger than their previous pledge," and that Mexico's "agreement to accelerate the Migrant Protection Protocols could help reduce what Mr. Trump calls 'catch and release' of migrants in the United States by giving the country a greater ability to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico."
U.S. officials had been working to expand the migrant program, which already has led to the return of about 10,000 people, and said Friday's agreement was a major push in that direction. Nevertheless, the Times, citing unnamed officials from Mexico and the U.S., reported that the concessions already had been hashed out in a more limited form.
"Another false report in the Failing @nytimes," Trump wrote. "We have been trying to get some of these Border Actions for a long time, as have other administrations, but were not able to get them, or get them in full, until our signed agreement with Mexico. Additionally, and for many years Mexico was not being cooperative on the Border in things we had, or didn’t have, and now I have full confidence, especially after speaking to their President yesterday, that they will be very cooperative and want to get the job properly done."
That might have been a reference to discussions about Mexico becoming a "safe third country," which would make it harder for asylum-seekers who pass through the country to claim refuge in the U.S. The idea, which Mexico has long opposed, was discussed during negotiations, but Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard has said his country did not agree to it, even as Mexican diplomats said negotiations on the topic will continue.
And, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," insisted "all of it is new," including the agreement to dispatch around 6,000 National Guard troops — a move Mexico has described as an "acceleration."
A Mexican Army soldier near an immigration checkpoint in Tapachula, Chiapas state, Mexico, this past Saturday. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)
"This is the first time we've heard anything like this kind of number of law enforcement being deployed in Mexico to address migration, not just at the southern border but also on the transportation routes to the northern border and in coordinated patrols in key areas along our southwest border," he said, adding that "people can disagree with the tactics" but that "Mexico came to the table with real proposals" that he said will be effective, if implemented.
The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico headed off a 5 percent tax on all Mexican goods that Trump had threatened to impose starting Monday. The tariffs were set to rise to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019.
But, Trump suggested Sunday, the threat of tariffs is not completely removed.
"Importantly, some things not mentioned in [yesterday's] press release, one in particular, were agreed upon," Trump continued. "That will be announced at the appropriate time. There is now going to be great cooperation between Mexico & the USA, something that didn’t exist for decades. However, if for some unknown reason there is not, we can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs - But I don’t believe that will be necessary. The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged @CNN, will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!"
Bernie Sanders, for example, derided Trump on Sunday for purportedly picking unnecessary and economically costly fights with a variety of countries.
"I think what the world is tired of and what I am tired of is a president who consistently goes to war, verbal war with our allies, whether it is Mexico, whether it is Canada," Sanders said.
But, in a tense moment on CNN's "State of the Union," Sanders struggled when asked by host Dana Bash why he had called the situation at the southern border a "fake crisis" engineered by the White House.
"Immigration officials have arrested or encountered more than 144,000 migrants at the southern border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years," Bash began. "Border facilities are dangerously overcrowded; migrants are actually standing on toilets to get space to breathe. How is that not a crisis?"
Sanders responded that the president has been "demonizing" immigrants.
Beto O'Rourke, in a separate interview, conceded only that Trump may have helped accelerate the implementation of a previously existing arrangement.
"I think the president has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made and, in some case, months ago," O'Rourke said on ABC News’ "This Week." "They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large the president achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has."
Mexican officials, meanwhile, insisted that they would remain engaged in active negotiations with the Trump administration.
"We want to continue to work with the U.S. very closely on the different challenges that we have together, and one urgent one at this moment is immigration," Mexican diplomat Martha Barcena said Sunday.
She told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that the countries' "joint declaration of principles... gives us the base for the road map that we have to follow in the incoming months on immigration and cooperation on asylum issues and development in Central America."
Barcena added that the U.S. wanted to see the number of migrants crossing the border to return to levels seen in 2018.
Fox News' Bret Baier, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The change was caused, in part, by another strained trade relationship that developed under the Trump administration. The Port of Los Angeles’s top trading country is China, and the ongoing trade war between the two nations contributed to a 3 percent decline in trade through the California port in the first four months of 2019.
But some here worry that Mexico could eventually lose patience with the Trump administration’s trade tactics, souring the relationship.
The need for trade with Mexico is readily apparent to Ruben Norton, 36, who runs a sporting goods store with his father just blocks from the border checkpoint. Their business, first opened in 1947, is dependent on that cross-border commerce.
“Without Mexico, this place and Laredo is a ghost town,” Norton said, gesturing around his store. “With everything we’re doing, at what point do we jab them enough that Mexico just gives us the middle finger?”
Friday’s announcement did not necessarily indicate the end of tensions.
The U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration states that the two countries would “continue their discussions on the terms of additional understandings to address irregular migrant flows and asylum issues, to be completed and announced within 90 days, if necessary.”
The New York Times reported Saturday that the two neighbors had come to this agreement months ago, leading to allegations the president had manufactured both the crisis and its conclusion.
A White House official confirmed to NBC News that Mexico had already agreed to send troops to its southern border and take U.S. asylum seekers as they wait for their legal cases in the U.S. to proceed, as The Times had reported. In the latest declaration, Mexico will send 600 more soldiers to its southern border and speed up its timeline for other portions of the agreement.
The official noted the White House planned to take a wait-and-see approach, leaving enough room to force another negotiation if the president finds Mexico’s actions ineffective.
The possibility of more negotiations and Trump’s tweet on Sunday that the United States “can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs,” offers little comfort to the people of Laredo, where a level of fear and uncertainty continues to linger despite the relief some felt Friday night after the announcement.
“It’s great we don’t have them starting Monday. That’s awesome,” Gonzalez said. “No one has to worry about Monday. I don’t have to worry about Tuesday and Mexico retaliating. But what happens in 90 days? As we get closer, this administration seems to like to do things at the last minute. Every administration likes to do things different, but how do businesses plan for that? It causes chaos.”
This business community has already felt the squeeze of the Trump administration’s tariffs.
Activists had been jailed, while others faced prosecution over the 2014 demonstrations, which shut down parts of the city for several months. Pro-democracy lawmakers had been kicked out of office on a range of grounds, and numbers at events in their support or calling for political reform were dwindling. Polls found that confidence in the city's future was at a 16-year low.
Then came the extradition bill.
According to organizers, more than a million people took to the streets Sunday to protest a new law which could allow Hong Kongers to be extradited to China on a range of offenses. Critics say the move would make anyone in Hong Kong vulnerable to being grabbed by the Chinese authorities for political reasons or inadvertent business offenses and undermine the city's semi-autonomous legal system.
Though police put the protest size at closer to 250,000, there's little doubt that the march was among the largest since 2003, when 500,000 people protested against a sedition law -- and successfully blocked it.
That protest was motivated, in part, by fears the city would be subject to a China-style rule of law, or rather lack thereof.Fear of China is what drove people to the streets Sunday, too.
Sunday's protest, however, wasn't just remarkable for its size -- but also its demographics. While the Umbrella Movement galvanized Hong Kong's youth and was mainly student-led, it wasn't popular with everyone, and some in the city felt it was disruptive to business.
Opposition to the extradition bill, however, came from a wider cross-sectionof society.
Lawyers, business people, middle-class, middle-aged first-time protesters were all on the streets of Hong Kong on Sunday.
Their presence showed that while the fight to extend Hong Kong's freedoms may have fizzled, the willingness to battle to protect existing rights is as strong as ever.
Historic protests
The 2003 anti-sedition protests were a defining moment for the city's opposition movement.
The bill could have seen anyone convicted of treason, sedition, secession or subversion against China jailed for life, and -- like Sunday's protest -- attracted huge opposition from many sectors of Hong Kong. The huge march was followed by multiple government resignations, and the bill was dropped, never to be revived.
But while the 2003 protests are remembered as being against the sedition law, they took place on July 1, the anniversary of Hong Kong's handover from British to Chinese control and an annual day of protests.
Many participants in that protest were also expressing frustration with the government's handling of an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and its effect on the economy, as well as a host of minor scandals.
Sunday's march was about one issue alone -- saying no to the extradition bill -- but whether it can repeat the success of the 2003 protest is perhaps up for debate.
During a press conference Monday to address the protests, the city's Chief Executive Carrie Lam defended the bill, saying "additional safeguards" have been made to protect human rights.
"We will make sure that all these additional safeguards are legally binding," she said.
But while it is true the government has watered down some provisions, especially over white collar and tax crimes (in an apparent sop to the business community), it has not slowed the breakneck pace of the legislation, which has bypassed traditional scrutiny by lawmakers.
A second reading is due to take place on Wednesday, and the government has expressed its intention to pass the bill before the summer break.
What happens next?
Protests in 2003 sunk the sedition law and saw multiple officials resign. After the Umbrella Movement then-Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying didn't run for a second term,and the protests profoundly changed the makeup of the pro-democracy camp in Parliament, though several of the most radical lawmakers have since been expelled.
Like Leung, Lam's days may be numbered. While she is unlikely to resign, many observers feel the furor over the extradition bill will put Beijing off appointing her for a second term, preferring a leader untainted by the current political crisis.
While Lam claims it is her initiative, Beijing's role in all of this is unclear, due to the incredibly opaque nature of Chinese politics.
State media in mainland China has come out hard in favor of the extradition bill and the need to pass it quickly, downplaying the protests, coverage of which has been subject to heavy censorship on Chinese social media. A nationalistic state-run tabloid accused "foreign forces" of encouraging the protests.
Both the Beijing and Hong Kong governments may feel they are too far gone with this matter to back down, even in the face of such concerted opposition as seen Sunday --Lam especially has staked her reputation on the bill.
Pro-democracy lawmakers will do everything they can to derail the bill when debate resumes on Wednesday, with a 1-million-strong mandate to increase their efforts, which have previously dissolved into scuffles in the legislature. But they lack the numbers to actually vote it down, and no pro-government lawmakers have yet said they will vote against the bill, guaranteeing its passage.
In that case, the sight of tens thousands of people in Hong Kong's streets may become familiar once again, courtesy of a protest movement the government has inadvertently reinvigorated.
