Good afternoon, and welcome to the Atlantic Council. For those of you who dont know me, im frank miller. Im a member of the board here at the council. And the principal of the group. Were all very pleased today to have the opportunity to hear from steven lovegrove, the permanent secretary at the ministry of defense in london. Steven became the permanent secretary in april of 2016. Prior to that he was the permanent secretary for the department of energy and Climate Change and had distinguished career before that both in government and in the private sector. For those of you who dont know, the permanent secretary is the governments principle adviser on defense and has responsibility for policy, finance and planning as a departmental accounting officer. The principle the permanent secretary set strategy for defense, including corporate strategy, heads the department of state in the m. O. D. Civil service and the Overall Organization management and staffing of defense. So for those of you who are americans and dont understand that you can actually as a Civil Servant rise to a very senior positions and have real authority, youre seeing someone who actually does that in london. We appear to be approaching a cross roads in the history of the transatlantic relationship or so the pundits would have us believe. Were seeing protoe nationalism in many nato and european countries. Were certainly seeing protoe nationalism in russia and aggressive sense of trying to assert itself throughout the european space. We are seeing renewed efforts in the United States, the United Kingdom to make Large Defense Companies more responsive to both costs and schedule. And all of this is occurring in the midst of a great challenge, to the rules based order which emerged from world war ii and it is in this context well hear from the permanent secretary. Ive been asked to be a paid public announcement before he comes on, which is to say for those of you who are here and watching on computers, please join the conversation by following acskocroff and using the poundspecialrelationship. And with that, i give you steven lovegrove, the permanent secretary of the ministry of defense in london. [ applause ]. Well, thank you, frank. Im delighted to be here at the Atlantic Council with such a distinguished audience. Im going to talk today about britains place in a rapidly changing world and offer some thoughts on the implications for us all. But before that, should perhaps begin to build on a little of what frank talked about in my rather archaic title of in fact fully permanent undersecretary of state, which doesnt really translate very well into american english. I dont need to tell this audience that there are some important differences between our constitutions. An example from 1962, president kennedy and Prime Minister mcmilan in nassau with the Main Business of polaris out of the way failed to talk of other matters. The president asked the Prime Minister how his budget was going. Fine, thanks, said mcmilan. No trouble in the house of the commons asked the president . No, no, no replied mcmilan. We write the budget, throw it over the wall and the majority approves it. Well, said kennedy, wonderingly, anyone could run a country like that. So, another distinction, though, is that virtually all of our ministries are led by secretaries of state who are also members of parliament. So the members of the cabinet and a handfuls of more junior ministers who support them in leading their departments interact with their fellow parliamentarians nearly every single day. Everyone below those ministers is a career official. We have no political appointees like in your system, although i am aware you have rather fewer than youre used to. We always have only a very few political advisers and a handful in the Prime Ministers political advisers cant issue instructions to Civil Servants at all. The role of the permanent secretary is frank outlined my job is to lead the department as it supports the government of the day on the principle policy and management adviser to the defense secretary. By working close with the defense secretarys principal military adviser. Day by day i run the department. The cds gives Strategic Directions to operations and we come together to try to make it all add up. Together the cds and i are the defense voice at the National Security council official meetings and we jointly chair the Defense Strategy group. We jointly lead integrated teams of career Civil Servants and military offices working jointly. And that is an absolutely key characteristic of our system. And that is one of our most enormous strengths and one i suspect we dont make enough of or talk about enough in public. As frank says, i was an investment banker for a very long period of my career. I dont expect any sympathy as a result of that. But i can say that from that van teenage point and from the Vantage Point of not seeing the defense a huge amount of my career, the strengths that we have in the uk system have served us incredibly well and will continue to serve us incredibly well in the future. I could discuss the Civil Service and parliament for a lot longer, but its time for bigger things. Its traditional to begin these discussions with threats and challenges. I want to briefly mention some positives. The uk is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a uniquely connected nation with alliances and partnerships the world over. We are the most trade dependent member of the g20 and we consider that a strength. The language of shakespeare remains the language of the world over. We are second only to the United States in our Technological Base and by that i mean human academic and industrial. The uk the well positioned to deliver 21st century defense and we continue to be the home of some of the greatest high End Manufacturing companies in the world and more on that later. We spend our money wisely. Weve increased investments in defense at the same time as reducing overall government spending. Were proud to meet the nato target of spending 2 , 2. 21 actually of our gdp on defense. The government is committed to increased defense spending by. 5 above inflation in each year of this Parliament Running out to 2020. And we are also proud of spending. 7 of our National Income on overseas development aid. Reducing the risk of future conflicts. In fact, we are the only country in the world to hit both that 2 nato target and the. 7 overseas development target. We remain an out ward looking nation. As the Prime Minister said in january, the uk is and shall remain a secure prosperous, tolerant country, a magnet for International Talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. The British Government reaffirmed those spending commitments along with publishing our strategic defense and review in 2015. Were proud of that strategy document, both in the judgments that we made, many of which have proved perhaps regrettably prescient and in the progress weve made since delivering our objectives. I dont need to rehearse and i wont rehearse the increasing challenging and increasingly challenging Global Security context for this audience. But briefly our sdsr concluded that the uk defense and security needed to respond to four main challenges. First, the increased threat posed by terrorism extremism and instability, second the resurgence of state based threats and intensifying wider state competition. Third, the impact of technology, especially cyber and Network Issues and wider Technological Developments and fourth the erosion of the rules based international order, which makes it harder to build consensus and to tackle global threats. Some of those challenges are very much as they were in 2015. We have found no magic bullet to fix weak and failing states. We know it takes decades of toil, treasure, political commitment and sometimes blood to develop economies democracies and resilient societies. Even as we deny them safe havens around the world, we know that the ambitions of daesh, al qaeda and the like to poison mayhem have not diminished. The uk is committed to playing a leading role in the Global Counter Daesh Coalition contributing all the arms of government, economic, diplomatic, development and defense. But some things have changed. Most notably the threat from state actors has crystallized in more ways and more rapidly than perhaps we anticipated. As the defense secretary set out in his recent speech at st. Andrews university, we have a very clear eyed view of russian behavior. Alexander was murdered on british soil in 2006. In 2015, the annexation of crimea and the shooting down of mh 17 in 2014 then its intervention in syria all showed how russia had become more aggressive. The 2016 saw a further step change in russian behavior. It is seeking to expand its sphere of influence. Destabilized countries and weaken the alliance. It seeks to weaken todays International Rules based system, to write a new set of rule on their terms and reflecting their values. We are responding as an alliance to desuede and to deter. And also to engage. As the Prime Minister has said last week, we stand ready to engage with russia, but we are the scale and breadth of those challenges, the speed and change in some other events, not least the uks decision to leave the European Union leads some distinguished and voices to suggest that we need to rewrite our sdsr. We disagree. We got those threats right and we built a robust and flexible plan to take them on. And as you all know, rewriting a strategy is an excellent excuse to avoid executing it. But that does not mean that we should not constantly test and adjust our planning. Indeed, it would be a grave error to do anything else. And when we do that, we need to remember the Guiding Principles of sdsr which are to be internationally, innovative. I will unpack those in term. We decided to make our defense policy and plans international by design. Our armed forces have almost always operate aid long side allies and partners. And first and foremost, with nato, the Strongest Military alliance the world has ever seen. Nato knows what it must now do. It must deliver greater resources, most particularly from Member States not yet meeting the 2 target. Efficiency is not a substitute for commitment. We need both. With resources nato must also reform. Nato has begun that journey and the uk is determined to lead the effort. Today, nato has embarked on a new defense and terror posture. We have a greater focus on our higher Readiness Forces and we are starting to develop new responses to hybrid threats, nuclear blackmail and cyberattack. But we now need to press the accelerator. The institutions of nato shape, act the joint forces commands and so on all need to play a part in the transformation of nato to a genuinely agile, flexible organization. One in which we can have confidence that can respond quickly enough to those who wish us harm. Such an organization requires nato to be adaptable and responsive to the changing environment. We need to strive for an alliance that is less bureaucratic, better at prioritizing, more capable of taking more capable of making difficult decisions quickly. We must empower senior officials to draw on their experience and insight to prioritize and resource the most pressing issues for its Member States. There needs to be a restored sense of relevance. Nato must demonstrate through action that it contributes to tackling our challenges, including terrorism. That contribution to count counterterrorism needs to be based on intelligence. To record two of the most important words in the treaty, north atlantic. Nato is an alliance for euroatlantic security. We are perhaps growing too comfortable considering our shared nation is safe, somewhere we dont need to worry too much about. That is wrong. If it ever was, it is no longer a benign environment. Is it becoming a contested space and we must continue to Work Together to protect it and the trade and Communication Channels to which it is home. Thats a point i could explore in other domains as well, but thats for another time. Nato cannot be the whole answer. Against haever more complex problems we must bring together military and Nonmilitary Responses and that means we must reinvigorate the relationship between nato and the eu. The uk is today a significant contributor to eu missions around the world. We are leaving the eu, but we remain committed to European Security and we will continue to be a supporter. Of eus effort for piece and security. We will continue to communicate with our partners for a supportive relationship between nato and the eu which is in our and all others National Security interests. Finally, our International Emphasis must include our most important bilateral relationships. It is worth dwelling on a couple of veexamples. They will undertake their first respective patrols. They will be the first of Nuclear Deterrent submarines responsible for providing the guarantees of our National Security against threats. At their heart, each of these classes of submarines will carry missiles. The warheads are National Assets for both our countries and the firing chains to launch them. A missile coming off the production line doesnt know if it zedestined for a uk submarin. Just dwell on that thought. Our respective guarantees of sovereigty and our last lines of national defense, national warheads, national firing change all borne on a common fleet of missiles, all holstered in a common missile compartment. No two countries in the world trust each other enough or have the raw engineering abilities to do that. Weve agreed that the u. S. Marine corps joint strike fighters will fly from our new aircraft carriers on their first operational deployments. It will be an unmatched demonstration of our commitment to working with one another. That relationship and that commitment starts at the top and the recognition of the historical and future joint endeavorss is genuine. Our partnership on the f35 Program Providers us both with an unmatched fifth Generation Air capability and it provides us with considerable industrial and economic benefits and there can be no defense waithout a sustainable base. British Aerospace Systems is a u. S. Company. Lockheed martin is a uk company. We should build on that reality delivering a twoway street for defense procurement cooperation. You know that innovation is the day job for any tactical commander. Its the day job for our engineers and Laboratory Staff creating new capabilities to keep us safe. Its a day job for the Defense Industry seeking to provide capabilities we need at prices we can afford. Innovation is foundational to everything about defense. The uk is good at innovation. Were number three on the Global Innovation index and in the hindsight we can see this is dispute the actions of government rather than because of them. We became comfortable with the idea that we would have technological capability. We missed early on that cyber would present our opponents to do us harm. So innovation is the second strand of our strategic response. The uk is not pursuing a third strategy of the sort that the deputy has spoken about in the last few years. Our ambition instead is to fundamentally change how we go about our business in pursuit of military advantage now and in the future. We also recognize that today technological innovation happens primarily in private enterprise rather than in government so weve established the defense and security excaccelerator. We recognize that the world changes faster so we need to invest in horizon scanning because the life scan of any defense is going to get short and shorter before anything new comes along. We have set up the innovation and research unit. Weve established an Innovation Fund to support suppliers with great new ideas in bringing them from concept to capability. We know that inside the department we need to be held to account for innovation so we have appointed a Defense InnovationAdvisory Panel to advise the defense secretary drawing on the uks world class capabilities that we have in so many sectors. We are doing all of this internationally, including krei corpora coop rating with governments. Ten years ago we recognized that many of our security challenges were coming from weak and failing states so we established ab stabilization unit originally staffed from the ministry of defense, the Foreign Office and the department of international develop. Today the stabilization brings many departments together to continue that mission. We brought together some policy teams in the Foreign Office and from the Foreign Office and energy. Today there is one joint unit for security policy. One team led by one official reporting to two secretaries of state. We needless conventional relationships too. Once we go on operations confident that the homeland was secure and resilient. We were in away Games Department tackling threats at range so we dont have to at home, but in todays conflicts there is less and less distinction between home and away. There are the three planks of our strategy, international, innovation and integration. Their identification will not deliver a lasting peace, but they can guide us as we review and adjust plans to a changing world, including the destabilizing and aggressive actions of russia and other states. Separately and together these principals remind us in the uk how important it is to take on our challenges in harness with the United States. We think alike, but we are not the same. We deeply understand each other, but we can still offer a different perspective. There is no other country that can play the role of the United States in the rules based International System and there is no closer u. S. Ally than the uk who can help you achieve your goals. There is no other country Whose Technology sector can drive the kind of innovation that is requires to deliver 21st century defense and there is no closer u. S. Ally than the one who it is our mission in the Second World War brought to you the first radar you could fit on fighter aircraft, the designs for the first jet engine and the blueprint for the nuclear bomb. Our people Work Together, train together, study together, deploy together, fight together and die together. Military and civilian, government and industry, they are the very best of their generation. Across all that we do, we have been, we are, we will remain the very closest of allies. We face a more challenging future. We have a plan to respond. Let us do so together. And with that, ill be delighted to take your questions. [ applause ] im going to begin by thanking you for those remarks and for underlining the special relationship and for embodying it in your presence here. Let me begin by asking you about brexit. We hear a great deal since june from self serving people suggesting that brexit means that the uk basically opts out of European Defense and this requires a separate European Defense identity. You touched on this during your remarks, but ill ask you to say a little bit more about that allegation. It is an allegation which has been made and i have to say it really could not be further from the truth. We are leaving the European Union and i dont think anybody should labor under the misapprehension that somehow that will not happen, but we are profoundly european. The uk is part of europe. We cannot turn ourselves into the middle of the atlantic and p pretend were not. I think the idea that the European Union is going to somehow recreate the kind of protective umbrella that nato has been capable of providing over the last 80 years i think is nonsensical. If i look at the enhanced forward presence missions which are all coming into action this year, those are all in members of the ueu. They are all there to be symbols of how nato guarantees European Security and safety. If we had left already, three of those missions would be led by noneu countries. It would be the u. S. , canada, the uk. I mean, i think that is a sense in which of course the eu is very important, but the interconnections between our various countries go much, much deeper than that and anybody who imagines that somehow or rather leaving the European Community is going to change that i think has really got it profoundly wrong. Thank you. I see the image of President Trump on the screens out there. Let me ask you a bit of an unfair question, which is to what degree do you think the president s call echoed by secretaries mattis, tillerson for members of the europeanan alliance to increase their defense spending that it will have any effect on defense spending on the continent . Well, as a matter of fact i think it probably has had a lot of resonance. It is a subject of conversation, probably not in the not in all the salon bars across europe, but certainly in places where it hadnt been a proper conversation. And it has become so in the last few months, really. And in particular i think that the secretary of defenses comments about europe needing to show as much commitment to the people of europe as america has done have resonated completely powerfully from somebody who has been a former Supreme Commander of nato. I think it has made a difference actually. The uk was one of the original authors of those kinds of commitments. But we are glad that they are having more bite now than perhaps they have before. I do think there will be a moment coming up when we need to think quite carefully about what 2 means for each of the members of nato. There are certain elements of spending which certain countries may choose to do which will be more helpful than other parts of spending and i think we need to fairly soon get into a more granular discussion about where those points of difference actually are so that nato as a whole can operate in a more sort of holistic way with the right level of capabilities and skills, but lets concentrate on the mark of 2 and lets also not forget the 20 of expenditure on equipment as well. That is a really important part of those commitments that again we wouldnt want to see missed. Right. Let me turn to the audience. Their faces i recognize. Let me there are microphones on either side and when i call on you, would you please stand and at least identify yourself so that we all know whos asking the question. Harlan. Thank you for your presentation. I would like to get your advice. It was not entirely clear what the Obama Administrations strategy was toward either russia or of the Islamic State. It is even less clear what the trump administrations strategy is towards both. As you know the obamas administrations First Defense priority was to deter and if necessary defeat russia in a war, but when you ask that question to ash carter you didnt get a firm answer. In terms of our strategy, what do you think the tenants of a strategy towards russia ought to be and how do you think we ought to be address the Islamic State in perhaps ways were not doing now . I think that the approach to russia is going to be many fold and i will pick out some of the points of it that the British Government feels strongly about. Ill leave the American Government to develop its own policies. The invasion of crimea was the first forceable seizure of land in europe since the Second World War and that is not something that can be forgotten likely so the uk government is committed to keeping sanctions and other restrictions on russia for as long as it takes to rectify that position. We dont want to go to a phase where we move on and i think that is a view that most of our european allies hold firm to as well and i hope that the new American Administration will stay the same. I think we do want to engage in fact actually with russia. I think its important that the lines of communications are open so that we can understand how their doctrine is evolving and it has evolved a lot. It has evolved a lot more than natos and the wests have and i want to make sure that nobody would ever accuse our people in the west of falling into the trap of miscalculation or not understanding where russia is coming from. So i think i mentioned what the Prime Minister said about engaged, but beware. I think thats what we are doing. My colleague went over to see his colleague last week in fact in order to make some of those points and to generate a conversation there. Our foreign secretary is going over to meet with them fairly soon as well. We are committed to engaging, but in a very measured fashion. I would say that nato is principally there in order to ensure the stability and security of the north atlantic and europe to a certain extent. The biggest threat to that is russia so nato needs to be configured to be able to meet that threat. This is not an aggressive posture. It needs to be a defensive posture, but we need to make sure it is properly configured for the threat. In terms of isis, i think we can see sufficient progress on the ground now to feel confident that that ground war will be oneonone relatively soon. The task then will turn to i think making sure that upstream interventions dont allow for the resurgeriance of that violence in the future. I talked about the money we spend on International Development. Its for sure that we need to think very very carefully with our colleagues in the Foreign Office and International Development as to how we can best direct our efforts and money to make sure that this scourge doesnt reappear. Trying to exterminate ever last element would be probably a mistake. Rose, please. You spoke with the various threats that were facing and called them hybrid threats. Do you interpret the american view of the ray zone, which is partially hybrid and partially Unconventional Warfare similar to the hybrid threats. And you mentioned the stabilization unit which contains a lot of organizations within the government. Do you see that perhaps as the start of a whole of government approach . You mentioned its quite small. Do you see that as a start of the whole of government and do you think we should be doing something similar . I know this is slightly is it the same as those gray zones . Yes, it is. Thats how were thinking about it. Our understanding of doctrine being developed is i think in some ways rather more advanced than ours, but we are intensely aware of some of the things that we might be confronting when we depl depl deploy. Obviously we know what a bit of the play book looks like as a result of that, but all of these things are very much within the scope of what i was talking about there. Certainly the Ministry Defense doesnt have all the answers to that. We have actually been spending a lot of time picking the brains of other departments. For instance the department of culture and media and sport because the communications challenge and propaganda challenge is something actually where i think we recognize that we dont have all of the answers. So that is where a whole of government approach certainly seems and needs to be applied. On the stabilization unit, yes, theres no question about that. I think we can see in a whole host of different places around the globe threats emerging which are not susceptible to straightforward military intervention or military advice. And we are absolutely committed to building up those joint units such that they dont feel small. They do feel the goto places for the subject matter theyre dealing with. The one i dealt with when i was at the department for energy and Climate Change was in fact the whole of that unit in my department and the whole of that unit they were both obviously doing the same things and working together. It was put together just before the oil collapse actually. The value and utility that the whole of government got out of it as a result was very meaningful. It was a good example of the practice actually coming good. Whether or not it is a model that america should follow, ill be a bit surprised if it didnt make sense for you to pull what i suspect may be duplicated resources around the plot to make the whole greater than the sum of their part. I dont know how easy or difficult that is to do in institutional terms. Im not naive on that front, but if you can do it i think we have certainly seen Real Advantage from it. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Im president of the Global Policy institute. On a slightly different geographic area, iran, does the uk or government believe that the Nuclear Deal Reached by the Obama Administration is still the best thing that could be achieved and joint to that, do you see the any of the expectations of the Obama Administration that tying up iran in a positive new arrangement with the west on the Nuclear Affairs has actually delivered on the expectations that irans Foreign Policy would be sort of become mellower and how do you view the future of syria and the possibility of iran gaining a permanent foothold and joining basically with has bola. How do you view the whole thing . Thank you. We certainly do look upon the iran deal as the best hope for bringing iran into the position of being a responsible nonnuclear country. We supported the deal then and we support it now. Im not quite sure exactly where the american position has landed on it at the moment exhibit but we will be seeking to convince the administration if they do have in he doubany doubts that right deal to do. I think theres a lot of onus on the irans themselves to make the most of the freedoms that it the lifting of some of the restrictions that it exemplifies and embodies and that i suspect has some way to go. I think people will have to see the benefit of that deal for what we know to be sort of kind of longer term social pressures. Kind of unwind in a beneficial way. I think it is early stages. I would say when you asked the question can you therefore see iran behaving more responsibly, i guess the answer to that is no, not very much. However, i do think that the situation in syria is so extreme and they have chosen to play in that arena in a way that means that probably we cant necessarily see it just now. I mean, i think it will be for the next iteration to work out whether or not actually iran is living up to its side of the bargain. Ambassador bob hunter. Thank you. Could i press you a bit more on brexit . A lot of the course goes beyond your remitd mrd, but britains role within the European Union, it is to help with balance with the germans and the french and dealing with security in central europe, including ukraine. Part of it is the trade issues within the community or the union rather and kracross the atlantic. Im reassured by what you said in continuing to take part in European Union military activities when appropriate, but do you really believe or if you do believe as you how would you go about being able to punch at your weight if not above your weight if youre not going to be fully a part of the European Union institutions at a time of such great stress . I dont have a perfect crystal ball. I dont know exactly how the uk will be positioned in ten years time. I suspect that there will be areas where we will feel the loss of eu membership keenly. I suspect there will be areas where we will think to ourselves we have been liberated from a whole bunch of things and were doing exciting things which otherwise would be difficult to do. Its the decision however that the country has made and the resolution of the uk government and everybody working in it is to make the best of that decision, which definitely has opportunities as well as there are things we need to deal with. I think there are a whole host of areas where we are not going to reismove from the issues to with policing across europe where in fact actually European Partners are very dependent on a uk capabilities are also an area where we are going to play a full part. It is in our interests and their interests as well. It would be immoral not to do so. I think we can take we can take this idea that the uk is leaving the eu too far. There are going to be lots and lots of areas where were not going to be leaving it. Where the uk is going to be in terms of being the preferred partner into the eu, if thats one of your points, well see. We will still be one of the well still be a member of the g7 and a powerful and a voice on world stage. We will have different types of creating relationships and who knows what europe itself will look like in a few years time. In the back. Yes, sir. Im andrew hannah. Im a reporter at politico. In your opening remarks you mentioned how you were looking to boost commissions potentially in finland and how do you make sure that those efforts dont duplicate efforts already undertaken by nato . Well, we all remember the European Union until were not a member of the European Union. We will want to stay close to that. I imagine that when we leave the European Union, that may be one of the types of cooperation that we will want to continue frankly. These wise and capability do not really respect International Boundaries very well and as a result we need to recognize that as being a transnational threat that the uk is the National Interests are served by getting involved. I certainly wouldnt want to see duplicated capability. On that basis i think that question the actually is more interestingly is nato as an organization moving as quickly as it should be into that kind of area. Is it a sensible strategy to leave this to national governments. I think my instinct on that is probably not, but thats where i think i would put the focus of that. Probably have time for one more question. I think you put them back. Let me then just say that i hope as you leave this room today, you take two things away from what steven said in his prepared remar remarks. First, the enormous military technological and scientific capability, which the United Kingdom brings to our Nato Alliance and to include systems which are on the cusp of being deployed, the carriers and f35s and the patrol aircraft a. Thats the first thing. The military technical and scientific support that the uk provides to the only organization which really provides for the true defense of the north Atlantic Region against a major power threat. The second thing is the special relationship. Some of you here today who embody that, but every day thousands of brits and americans are working together in the intelligence field, the scientific field, in all branches of the military services and the diplomatic core. They do so as the third or fourth generation of 70 years of special relationship. It doesnt really matter whether the tabloids focus on whether the gift that the president gave the Prime Minister was adequate in the eyes of the press. The special relationship is unique. Its generational. Its something that all of us have to pass on to our to the next generation to make certain that this absolutely unique aspect of the relationship continues. So steven, thank you for being here. Thank you for your remarks and for what youve brought to us here. Please join me in thanking steven. Tonight, morgan reid executive director of the App Association which represents some 5,000 App Developers on their concerns about issues and what its members hope to see from congress from the trump administration. So the App Association was among the members of the Tech Community that decided to speak out against the immigration order. I was wondering if you could talk about the reasoning behind that . From our perspective the executive order was not done in a way that allowed for Legal Immigration of people into the country in a way that wasnt confusing. It was good to see that the order was changed to allow green card holders and others that have been in the United States and building amazing applications to come in. So there is good in that, but the reason we spoke out is we thought that the little guy and just how important immigrants were to the little guy wasnt getting heard. Tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan 2. Two former diplomats from the reagan and Obama Administrations talk about the future of the iran nuclear agreement. They discuss ways the Trump White House will approach the treaty and how its differed from the