New Manafort docs appear to contradict own lobbying claims

New documents filed in court by Paul Manafort’s lawyers appear to contradict his legal team’s own claims that the former Trump campaign chairman’s team only lobbied on behalf of the Ukrainian government in Europe.

The revelation could be important as Manafort is trying to fend off charges from special counsel Robert Mueller that Manafort failed to register as a foreign agent in connection with his lobbying work for the Ukrainian government. Earlier this year, Mueller accused Manafort and his former deputy, Rick Gates, of secretly organizing a group of former European politicians known as the “Hapsburg group” to lobby in the U.S. for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his party.

But, according to prosecutors, Manafort and his longtime associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, pressed those involved in the lobbying campaign to stress that the effort was focused exclusively on the European Union. A federal judge later ruled that Manafort was attempting to tamper with the testimony of potential witnesses and ordered him jailed over the incident.

Thursday’s documents — filed as part of a motion in court seeking to withhold more than 50 pieces of evidence from the jury in the upcoming trial — could complicate the EU-focused narrative. Several exhibits included in the court filing seem to contradict Kilimnik’s assertion that the Hapsburg group never lobbied in Washington.

“The Hapsburg team will also do a series of events between March and May in Washington DC designed to change the public rhetoric directed at Ukraine, but to also influence key members of the US Government through private meetings held at the highest levels,” Manafort wrote to Yanukvych in a memo dated Feb. 21, 2013. “This will include major speeches, participation in key events, and private meetings with senior US officials including Secretary of State John Kerry, and other members of the Administration.”

A spokesman for Manafort declined to comment.

The memo isn’t the first evidence that the Hapsburg group — which included a former Austrian chancellor and a former Italian prime minister — lobbied in the U.S. Manafort wrote in another memo made public by Mueller’s team last month that he had “organized and leveraged” the visits of two Hapsburg group members to Washington. And disclosure reports retroactively filed by two Washington lobbying firms show that members of the Hapsburg group met with lawmakers in Washington around the same time.

Manafort is not set to face trial on his lobbying-related charges until September. However, he will face trial next week on separate Mueller charges of tax evasion, bank fraud and failing to report foreign bank accounts.

The documents filed by Manafort’s lawyers on Thursday comprise hundreds of pages and offer the most detailed look yet into the lobbying campaign he orchestrated in Europe and Washington.

In a memo to Yanukovych dated Feb. 4, 2013, Manafort wrote that John Kerry’s confirmation as secretary of state “is a positive development for us and will be a dramatic change from former Secretary Clinton.”

The Feb. 4 memo isn’t the only one in which Manafort appeared wary of Hillary Clinton, who had stepped down as secretary of state days earlier.

“It is important to understand that holdovers from the Clinton days and the US Embassy in Kyiv are not objective and are conspiring to identify options to get sanctions as a tool to pressure the Yanukovich Government,” Manafort wrote in another memo to Yanukovych.

Manafort also described Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the Europe, Eurasia and emerging threats subcommittee, as good for Ukraine.

Manafort was more pessimistic about Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the new chairman of another subcommittee, suggesting that he’d use his position to raise the issue of Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Ukrainian prime minister and Yanukovych’s political rival. Yanukovych’s government imprisoned Tymoshenko on what were widely condemned at the time as politically-motivated charges.

“It is highly likely that Smith uses this subcommittee as a vehicle to hold hearings on [Tymoshenko’s] situation and possibly promote legislation,” the memo reads.

Smith had previously introduced a bill to encourage free and fair Ukrainian elections. Lobbyists hired by Manafort and Gates had lobbied against bills in 2012 condemning Yanukovych’s imprisonment of Tymoshenko.

Some of the documents are more cryptic.

One document, dated Jan. 15, 2013, lists four consultants in the U.S.: “Podesta/Devine/Weber/ Barry Jackson.”

The lobbyists Tony Podesta of the Podesta Group and Vin Weber of Mercury and the consultant Tad Devine have all confirmed that they worked with Manafort and Gates. But Jackson, a former chief of staff to one-time House Speaker John Boehner, has not been tied to Manafort.

Jackson said he had no idea why his name was there.“I have done no work with or for Paul Manafort nor on behalf of the Yanukovych regime and know of no reason why my name shows up in a document,” Jackson wrote in an email to POLITICO on Thursday evening.

Congress grapples with debt ceiling crisis, July 23, 2011

On this day in 2011, President Barack Obama summoned congressional leaders to an emergency meeting at the White House to deal with a federal debt crisis after failed efforts to strike a bipartisan “grand bargain” — one that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had said would have cut $3 trillion to $4 trillion in spending over 10 years.

“I want them here at 11 a.m. tomorrow,” Obama told reporters after his talks with Boehner had reached an impasse. “They are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.”

Obama told congressional leaders at their Saturday meeting that global markets could react adversely to the failure on Friday to strike a deal, a point reinforced by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The hourlong meeting broke up shortly before noon without resolving the impasse.

“We have run out of time for politics. Now is the time for cooperation,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-Nev.) said after the failed session.

Later that day, Boehner met separately with key Republican lawmakers in a further bid to cobble together a deficit-reduction package that could pass muster in the GOP-controlled House. “We are working, and I’m confident there will be a resolution,” Boehner told fellow House Republicans during an afternoon conference call. “There has to be.”

They deadlocked over major elements of an agreement even as several lawmakers said they were determined to make a new compromise public on Sunday before financial markets opened in Asia. But that bid also soon foundered.

On July 31, Obama and Boehner announced that an agreement had been reached to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling until after the 2012 election. The president signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 into law on Aug. 2, the date Treasury officials said the nation’s borrowing authority would have expired.

On Feb. 9, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, suspending the debt limit through March 1, 2019.

Absent further action by Congress, when the suspension expires, the U.S. Treasury will once again find itself up against the debt limit. At that point, the secretary would begin deploying so-called extraordinary measures, accounting maneuvers that allow for full government operations to continue for an additional, but necessarily limited, period.

When such extraordinary measures run out and Treasury depletes its cash reserves, the federal government would reach the “X Date” — the day when the U.S. government is unable to meet its obligations in full and on time. A preliminary analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center indicates Treasury will have enough cash on hand, given its ability to deploy extraordinary measures, to operate the federal government through at least the summer, if not the fall of 2019, thus encompassing most of Trump’s term in the White House.

As of April 30, the total national debt amounted to about $21 trillion.

Robert D. Ray, longtime Iowa governor, dies at 89

DES MOINES, Iowa — Former longtime Iowa Gov. Robert D. Ray, who helped thousands of Vietnam War refugees relocate to the state and defined Iowa’s Republican politics for years, has died. He was 89.

Ray, who never faced a serious election challenge during his 14 years as governor, died Sunday morning at a nursing home in Des Moines, said his former chief of staff David Oman. Ray had been battling Parkinson’s diseas for several years, Oman said.

Ray once said that his approach to governing was simple: leave politics out of the decision-making process.

“I used to tell the staff, whenever we would talk about something like that, that you don’t start talking about politics at all,” Ray told The Associated Press during an interview in November 2011. “Let’s just decide what the right thing to do is, and then we’ll decide how to promote it.”

During his 14 years as governor, Ray never faced a serious election challenge before he decided not to again seek re-election in 1982.

Recalling his time at the state’s helm, Ray said he was especially proud of his work beginning in 1975 to resettle refugees from the Vietnam War in Iowa. The state became one of the largest resettlement locations in the U.S., and Ray dismissed any notion that relocating thousands of people fleeing Vietnam to his largely rural Midwestern state would carry political risks.

“It was saving the lives of refugees,” Ray said. “People would say that you might not get re-elected and I would say I can make more money if I don’t get re-elected.”

He was born Robert Dolph Ray in Des Moines on Sept. 26, 1928. Ray graduated from the Drake University law school in 1954, and became active in Republican politics while practicing law. He eventually was considered a leader of the party’s moderate wing.

He became chairman of the Iowa Republican Party and was credited with rebuilding it after the devastating GOP losses in 1964, when Barry Goldwater headed the party’s national ticket and lost in a historic landslide to President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Ray was rewarded for his efforts with his gubernatorial win. He also served as chairman of the National Governors Association, the Republican Governors Association, the Midwestern Governors Association, the Education Commission of the States and the Council of State Governments. And in 1976, he and his wife, Billie, and their three children were the first family to live in the governor’s mansion in Terrace Hill.

Although Ray was a strong Republican throughout his life, some of his decisions seemed to run counter to GOP leanings at the time.

He signed into law the state’s bottle deposit system, which encouraged recycling by tacking a fee on soda and beer bottles that was repaid upon their return. He also created the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women, which advocates for policies that benefit women and girls. He also signed executive orders promoting civil rights and energy conservation.

“Obviously he was intelligent and a good politician, but he also had this compassion and forward thinking,” veteran Republican activist Becky Beach said in 2011. “To be a conservative Republican and talk about women’s rights was not something that everybody looked favorably on.”

But she noted that Ray “always had such a presence and generosity that kind of transcended whatever the chaos of the day was.”

Jerry Fitzgerald, who served as Democratic House majority leader during part of Ray’s tenure, said the former governor was reasonable and wanted to solve problems.

“He was an honorable man who did a lot of good things for the state,” Fitzgerald said a November 2011 interview.

Current Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds praised Ray’s leadership.

“His civility, courage and common-sense governing set a high standard for those who followed,” Reynolds said Sunday.

Ray remained active in public life after leaving the governor’s office, including serving as interim mayor of Des Moines in 1997, the same year he helped form the Institute for Character Development at Drake University. A year later, he served as the university’s interim president.

What attracted him to politics, he said, was the chance to work with people and improve their lives.

“There’s an excitement about being able to help other people, particularly in the governor’s office,” Ray said. “Money isn’t the only reason you exist.”

Melania Trump attends Ford’s Theatre gala

First lady Melania Trump attended the Ford’s Theatre annual gala on Sunday evening, paying tribute to President Abraham Lincoln’s legacy. It was one of her first public appearances since surgery last month.

“Tonight reminds all of us about the power the arts have in cultivating the American voice,” the first lady, who served as the honorary chairman, said in a statement. “Thank you to Ford’s Theatre Society for tonight, and your continued dedication to education and leadership in the arts — the impact they have on society is invaluable and something we will continue to cherish throughout time.”

Trump attended the event with President Donald Trump last year, but went solo due to the commander in chief’s presence in Singapore for his historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The first lady is beginning to return to a more public schedule after spending nearly three weeks out of the limelight following a kidney procedure.

Robert Kennedy laid to rest at Arlington, June 8, 1968

On this day 50 years ago, Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), three days after being felled by an assassin in California, was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery, 30 yards from the grave of his assassinated older brother, President John F. Kennedy.

Robert Kennedy, 42, was struck down at a Los Angeles hotel while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. He died two months after civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. Like King, Kennedy had stressed the need for social justice and had called for an end to the Vietnam War.

Thousands of mourners attended Kennedy’s funeral mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. In his eulogy, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “My brother need not be idolized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life. [He should] be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering, and tried to heal it, saw war, and tried to stop it.

“Those of us who loved him, and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us, and what he wished for others, will someday come to pass for all the world. As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him: ‘Some men see things as they are and say, “Why?” I dream of things that never were and say, “Why not?”’”

A special funeral train then brought Kennedy’s casket from New York to Washington, D.C., while hundreds of thousands of people lined the tracks. It took the train eight hours to make the usually four-hour journey. Members of Kennedy’s large family walked through the train to talk with the invited travelers who made the sad trip with them.

In the April 3 issue of The New Yorker, Louis Menand wrote: “Trains in the Northeast corridor do not run through upscale neighborhoods. The people who spontaneously turned out to watch the funeral train pass by — Kennedy’s biographer Evan Thomas says there were a million — were, by appearance, mostly working class, and there were whites and African-Americans often standing in clusters together.

“In 2018, looking back at those images, as the train approaches the terminal and the light begins to fade, you realize that you are watching the final hours of the great Democratic coalition that had dominated American politics since the election of Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932 — the coalition that would fracture six months later with the election of Richard Nixon, and which is now as dead as Robert Kennedy.”

The train arrived at Union Station shortly after 9 p.m. Many mourners who had made the 210-mile journey walked from the station down Constitution Avenue to Arlington to attend the only nighttime burial in the cemetery’s history.

Patrick Henry dies in Virginia at age 63, June 6, 1799

On this day in 1799, Patrick Henry, the first post-colonial governor of Virginia and, for a time, an outspoken critic of the federal government, died at Red Hill, his 520-acre plantation near Brookneal, Virginia, in Charlotte County. He was 63.

Capitalizing on his courtroom skills, Henry launched his political career in 1765 by winning a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he challenged the British Parliament’s colonial tax policies. In 1774 and 1775, he represented Virginia at the First and Second Continental Congresses, respectively, in Philadelphia. On the eve of the American Revolution, Henry famously proclaimed: “Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is not peace. The war is actually begun! … I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

In 1784, Henry was again elected governor of Virginia and served until 1786. He declined to attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787, reputedly saying that he “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.”

Henry sought to sway his fellow Virginians against ratifying the U.S. Constitution. He nearly succeeded, arguing that it gave away too much power to the federal government. Once it passed, however, he was instrumental in attaching the Bill of Rights to the founding document.

President George Washington offered him multiple posts, including secretary of state, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and minister to Spain. Henry turned them all down.

In the wake of the French Revolution, which took a radical turn, Henry, fearing a similar fate could befall the new republic, which was beginning to experience popular unrest, altered his views and became a Federalist. He supported the policies of Washington and John Adams and denounced the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which argued that states had the right to nullify federal laws that they regarded as unconstitutional.

As historian Richard Beeman noted in a 1974 biography, Henry was a man who “did not bother to write much of anything down.” The lack of primary source materials regarding Henry — only a handful of papers and a few of his speeches survive — has frustrated Henry’s biographers.

Two years before publishing his biography of Henry in 1817, William Wirt (1772-1834), a historian who also served as a U.S. attorney general, commented, “It is all speaking, speaking, speaking. ‘Tis true he could talk — Gods! how he could talk! but … to make the matter worse, from 1763 to 1789 … not one of his speeches lives in print, writing or memory.”

For his part, Beeman wrote that “the revolutionary firebrand, whatever his achievements, possessed a miserable sense of history.” By contrast, Beeman noted, Thomas Jefferson, who survived Henry by a quarter century, got to fill the paucity of historical information about Henry with his own largely negative recollections and opinions.

Democrat on Facebook report: ‘Sure looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress’

A top congressional Democrat slammed Facebook over a report alleging the company shared its users’ personal data with a range of device makers.

“Sure looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress about whether users have ‘complete control’ over who sees our data on Facebook. This needs to be investigated and the people responsible need to be held accountable,” tweeted David Cicilline, the ranking member of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

The New York Times reported late Sunday that Facebook “reached data-sharing partnerships with at least 60 device makers — including Apple, Amazon, BlackBerry, Microsoft and Samsung — over the last decade.” The story says Facebook began winding down the partnerships in April, but raises questions about whether they violated a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission.

The social network has been under growing pressure over its handling of user data. Zuckerberg testified before Congress in April over the Cambridge Analytica controversy, defending his company against criticism that it allowed the President Donald Trump-linked firm to improperly access information on as many as 87 million Facebook users via an academic researcher.Facebook, in a blog post, pushed back against the Times story, saying that the arrangements with device makers “allowed companies to recreate Facebook-like experiences for their individual devices or operating systems” and that the company “controlled them tightly from the get-go.”

MSNBC stays silent as Joy Reid comes under more scrutiny

Pressure on MSNBC and its star host Joy Reid grew on Thursday, as embarrassing posts from her old blog—on which she has expressed anti-gay views and promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories—continued to surface.

All the while, Reid has remained on the air, weighing in on topics like Roseanne Barr’s racist tweet and the cancellation of her ABC sitcom.

“This is not new,” Reid said on MSNBC Tuesday about the type of racism in Barr’s tweet. “If you’re able to think of people as somehow less a person than me, it makes it a lot easier to then take that next step and say this person shouldn’t be in this space.”

Conservatives have pounced on the irony of Reid commentating on offensive online comments, and attacked MSNBC for allowing to her remain on the air.

On Tuesday, Fox News ran a headline, “Tone-deaf MSNBC slammed for bringing on Joy Reid to discuss Roseanne Barr’s social media slur.”

Wednesday night, Fox host Tucker Carlson aired a segment highlighting decade-old posts in which Reid expressed views on immigration that sounded straight from the “America First” playbook, including that “flying the Mexican flag on U.S. soil strikes me as incredibly presumptuous and insulting to the US.”

Carlson crowed, “It’s possible that Reid will claim those posts were written by a mysterious hacker, she’s claimed that before, the last time she got caught with embarrassing blog posts. Maybe she’ll blame the entire thing on Vladimir Putin himself or some nameless Macedonian agent.”

And on Thursday, the National Review’s Jim Geraghty tweeted, “Roseanne’s gotta go, but MSNBC host Joy Reid gets a pass for homophobia AND 9/11 Trutherism? Man, being a liberal provides more protective armor than an Iron Man suit.”

The pressure on Reid ramped up this week on Wednesday, when BuzzFeed surfaced old blog posts in which she promoted conspiracy theories suggesting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job. Carlson brought her immigration posts to light that evening, and then, on Thursday, Buzzfeed found another post in which Reid appeared to photoshop John McCain’s head on the body of the Virginia Tech shooter. All of this comes a month after Reid claimed that hackers had infiltrated her now defunct blog to insert anti-gay posts.

On Thursday, MSNBC continued to refuse to comment on the host’s situation, as it has since she made her initial hacking claims in April.

Reid hosts a two-hour show on MSNBC on Saturday and Sunday mornings, but offers commentary throughout the week. On Tuesday, she co-hosted a high-profile townhall on race on the network. Valerie Jarrett was slated to appear at the townhall—where she made her first comments on Barr’s racist tweet about her—and Reid’s prominent role seemed another signal that MSNBC is standing behind her.

What started as an issue over views held a decade ago has morphed, in many ways, into one of trustworthiness. It has been more than a month since Reid claimed that she was hacked and neither she nor MSNBC have produced any evidence supporting the allegations. Reid has admitted on air that the cybersecurity experts she hired to look into the matter have been unable to turn up any proof.

It is common for organizations to stay mum while they conduct internal investigations, said Kathleen Culver, the director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin. While MSNBC has previously cited ongoing law enforcement investigations as a reason for its silence, the network has not disclosed whether it is doing its own investigation into Reid.

“Now with a new round of concerns being raised, it’s going to be important for them to let people know what they are doing, if they do stand behind her, if they are considering these old posts in some way,” Culver said. “In the absence of some kind of statement, I think people assume that it means everything is fine and there is no concern about these issues. People tend to plug an information vacuum with their own ideas.”

Reid’s troubles with her old blog actually began late last year, when Twitter user @Jamie_Maz and Mediaite surfaced that, in posts from 2007-2009, she had mockingly speculated about the sexuality of then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, referring to him as “Miss Charlie.” Reid apologized for those comments.

“This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized,” Reid said at the time.

Senate acquits President Johnson, May 26, 1868

After a two-month trial, the Senate acquitted President Andrew Johnson on this day in 1868. Johnson had been impeached by the House three months earlier. When the final crunch came, 35 senators found Johnson guilty and 19 not guilty — just one vote short of the two-thirds majority required to remove him from office.

Johnson, a former Democratic senator from Tennessee who succeeded to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, had been accused by congressional Republicans of violating the Tenure of Office Act.

Ten days earlier, the Senate also failed to convict Johnson, voting by an identical margin — 35-19. In hindsight, that proved to be the key test: The anti-Johnson forces were counting on a guilty vote on the 11th, and last, article of impeachment. It was the first order of business before the Senate and a summary of the other 10 articles. If Johnson had been found guilty in that first vote, he would have been out of office.

When the Civil War began in 1861, Johnson was the sole senator from a seceding state who remained loyal to the Union. He had built his political career on backing the interests of poor white Southerners.

“Damn the Negroes,” he said, explaining his stand. “I am fighting those traitorous aristocrats — their masters.” In return for his loyalty, Lincoln named Johnson military governor of Tennessee in 1862. In 1864, Lincoln placed him on the ticket as his running mate.

As the first post-Civil War president, Johnson pursued a lenient policy toward the vanquished South, offering wide-scale amnesty for former Confederates. Congress, dominated by radical Republicans, repeatedly overrode his vetoes.

In March 1867, seeking to further weaken Johnson’s authority, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act over his veto. It barred the president from removing federal officeholders, including Cabinet members confirmed by the Senate, without the Senate’s prior consent.

In the eight decades since the 1787 framing of the U.S. Constitution, the question had repeatedly arisen, “If the Senate is responsible for confirming appointees, does it also have a role in removing them?” Johnson decided to test the act’s constitutionality by firing Edwin Stanton, the hard-line secretary of war and a favorite of the radical Republicans on Capitol Hill.

In 1887, Congress repealed the Tenure of Office Act.

Still, the issue of the Senate’s role in dismissing executive officers remained cloudy through the half-century after Johnson’s term ended. Finally, in 1926, the Supreme Court resolved the matter. Chief Justice — and former president — William Howard Taft seized on the case of Myers v. United States to settle permanently the president’s constitutional right to fire federal officials.

The ruling proved to be the ultimate vindication for Johnson, and it confirmed the wisdom of that small minority of senators who had prevented the Senate from removing him from the presidency.

Tech scrambles to shape U.S. privacy debate as EU rules loom

The debut of Europe’s sweeping new digital privacy law has some U.S. lawmakers — and a few American tech giants — raising the idea of importing some version of it to the United States.

Facing mounting pressure over its privacy practices, and with Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation going into effect Friday, Silicon Valley is scrambling to shape the policy discussion as it seeps across the Atlantic. Microsoft and the big cloud computing company Salesforce have both called for some kind of national privacy regulations, while IBM has talked about adopting voluntary industry standards that could head off government mandates.

Either way, many in the tech world say avoiding the subject is no longer a viable option.

“In the last six to 12 months, it’s become very clear that doing nothing could be the recipe for very onerous and cumbersome regulation,” Chris Padilla, IBM’s vice president for government and regulatory affairs, told POLITICO.

The debate is erupting as the tech industry has faced growing scrutiny in Washington during the past year and a half from both the left and right — over everything from social media’s role in the 2016 election to the exposure of user data in the Cambridge Analytica case to the notion that Silicon Valley may be biased against conservatives. And as lawmakers get practice acting as a check on tech, regulation that once seemed highly unlikely suddenly seems somewhat more plausible.

A bill holding digital platforms more responsible for online sex trafficking, for example, once seemed even to some advocates like a longshot. But President Donald Trump signed it into law in April.

For any U.S. leaders interested in further clamping down on the tech industry, the European Union’s new regulation provides a potential model to follow.

At its core, the complex GDPR strengthens citizens’ right to say how data about them can be used, giving them the power to correct, delete and freely move their information from one service to another. It’s enforceable through fines up to a whopping 4 percent of a company’s global annual revenue — penalties that could amount to billions of dollars for U.S. tech firms found to be violating its requirements.

Facebook, Google and other U.S.-based internet companies have to comply with the rule for their European users, but they have been fuzzy on how they will apply the restrictions in the U.S.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Congress last month that he supported “in principle” U.S. regulation enshrining the standard, established by GDPR, that users must proactively consent to the use of their data by internet companies. But shortly afterward, Zuckerberg said the American approach to privacy should reflect the United States’ “different sensibilities.“

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has perhaps been the most explicit in his remarks. “[I]t’s time for an American GDPR to protect consumers at home,” he tweeted last week. “This can be the foundation of trust between technology and customers. The European GDPR privacy law means Europeans have ownership and control of their personal data. Now we need one.”

And Microsoft got attention this week for saying that it will “extend the rights that are at the heart of GDPR to all of our consumer customers worldwide.” The software giant said it has long advocated for national privacy regulation, though it stopped sort for calling for the full importation of the European rules.

IBM has gone a different route. Rejecting the idea that GDPR and its top-down approach “should be simply grafted” onto the U.S. system, the company has floated the idea of voluntary industry standards that could win the backing of government and stave off regulation. It’s a similar model to the private-public framework on cybersecurity created after President Barack Obama floated the idea of regulating how private companies address threats to critical digital infrastructure.

Some in the tech industry say they’ve been prompted to action not only by Europe’s moves, but by the erosion of user trust sparked by data scandals at Facebook and Uber, and the possibility of state-level rules like a consumer privacy ballot measure that’s gained traction California.

But also lighting a fire under them to engage publicly, they say, is the fact that even politicians in Washington who have traditionally taken a hands-off approach to the tech industry are beginning to raise the specter of regulation.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told POLITICO in an interview last week that Americans, seeing Europeans’ new privacy protections, are going to start demanding the same.

And on Thursday, Markey and colleagues Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Dick Durbin (D-Il.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced a Senate resolution “encouraging” companies to voluntarily apply the protections included in GDPR to Americans.

That might be expected talk for those Democrats, many of whom have long pushed for stronger consumer protection laws in the United States. But far more surprising — and concerning — to the tech industry is that it’s starting to see the idea of regulation being raised by free-market Republicans.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), for example, raised eyebrows for saying, when asked about regulating tech at an event this year, “If responsibility doesn’t flow, then regulation will.”

That sentiment was echoed by Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) during last month’s hearing with Zuckerberg over the Cambridge Analytica controversy. Warned Thune: “In the past, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been willing to defer to tech companies’ efforts to regulate themselves. But this may be changing.”

Those in and around the tech industry describe recent rounds of meetings and calls aimed at figuring out to how navigate the new landscape.

“The overwhelming majority of our companies support the idea of protecting and advancing a fundamental right to privacy,” said Dean Garfield, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents companies like Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

That said, he added, “They want to be thoughtful — certainly more thoughtful than GDPR — in figuring out how to do that in the United States effectively.”