OLD BROTHER SHELTER

What is a VPN?

2021-05-13T17:54:25.223Z

VPN stands for “virtual private network” – a service that protects your internet connection and privacy online. It creates an encrypted tunnel for your data, protects your online identity by hiding your IP address, and allows you to use public Wi-Fi hotspots safely.

Why do you need a VPN?

No one likes to be watched and tracked – even if they have nothing to hide. That’s why you need to step up your privacy game. Here are a few more reasons why you need a VPN:

You use public Wi-Fi regularly

By definition, VPN is your best friend when using public Wi-Fi. Hackers have many methods to steal your data on public hotspots, but using a VPN means that you can stop worrying about that. Therefore, people who want to browse in full privacy should use a VPN to secure their connection.

You need to mask your location

People working in countries with limited freedom of speech rely on private internet connection for their work. Sometimes, their lives might depend on it. Someone who lives under an authoritarian regime should use a VPN to hide their IP address and ensure extra security for their sensitive messages.

You want to access blocked content

One of the most popular things a VPN is used for is content access. If using streaming services and social networks while abroad is important to you, a VPN can help. It changes your IP address and redirects your connection to the internet through a remote server.

You want to avoid tracking and surveillance

Government agencies track and collect your browsing activity, messages, social posts, and other private data. A VPN protects you from that by encrypting your traffic and hiding your IP address. Use it at home, at work, and on the go to enjoy non-stop protection.

You’re an avid gamer

People who like gaming online have to deal with DDoS attacks, bandwidth throttling, and content restrictions. Luckily, you can forget about all of these problems with NordVPN. If you’re serious about gaming and want to enjoy a stable and safe connection, you should use a VPN.

You want to encrypt your data

Using a VPN is a good idea even when browsing from your home. VPN encryption is important when you want to protect your internet traffic and minimize your online footprint. This way, your internet service provider won’t be able to sell your entire browsing history to the highest bidder.

Grab the deal before it's too late

Enhance your online privacy and security with NordVPN.

Grab the Deal

How does a VPN work?

When you download VPN software to your device, it does most of the work for you — you only need to log in and connect.

However, it's useful to know how a VPN works to understand the service better. Here’s what’s going on behind the scenes:

When you connect to a virtual private network service, it authenticates your client with a VPN server.
The server then applies an encryption protocol to all data you send and receive.
The VPN service creates an encrypted “tunnel” over the internet. That secures the data traveling between you and your destination.
To ensure each data packet stays secure, a VPN wraps it in an outer packet, which is then encrypted through encapsulation. That is the core element of the VPN tunnel, keeping the data safe during transfer.
When the data arrives at the server, the outer packet is removed through a decryption process.

While the technology behind a secure and private VPN is complicated, using it doesn’t have to be. Read on to learn how to set up a VPN on your PC, Android phone, or Apple device.

Grab the Deal

Setting up a VPN connection

While more and more internet users join the VPN protection trend, many people still believe that using a VPN service is somewhat close to rocket science. While some digital security tools can be confusing, top VPN service providers design their apps to be easy to use.

This means that with NordVPN, you can start a VPN connection with just one click. Once you set up your NordVPN account and download an app for your device, all you have to do is:

That’s it – you can now enjoy a fully encrypted VPN connection! To have more control over your VPN experience, you can explore the servers’ list and the Settings section.

It doesn’t matter if you use a Mac, an Android tablet, or a Windows laptop. We strongly believe that people shouldn’t struggle to protect their home network and mobile devices. However, if you prefer to configure your VPN manually, you can. We have multiple manual set-up tutorials in our Help Center.

Ready to grab the limited deal?

Only one step left to start secure browsing.

Grab the Deal

Inside the ‘Lord of the Flies’ factionalism now plaguing Trumpland

2021-04-09T16:48:16.435Z

Distrust, whisper campaigns and a bit of backstabbing are rampant as aides scramble for access and power.

President Donald Trump speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla., on Feb. 28. | AP Photo/John Raoux, File -- By MERIDITH MCGRAW and GABBY ORR04/01/2021 04:30 AM EDT

Just one month after Donald Trump left the White House, a top donor to his campaign received a call on his personal cellphone from a Republican candidate seeking financial support.

The call was unsolicited, according to four people familiar with the situation, and it rubbed the donor, whose friends had received similarly unexpected fundraising pleas, the wrong way. Shortly thereafter, the firm Jones Day, which served as counsel to Trump’s campaign committee, sent out a letter to former staff and consultants, warning them that they risked prosecution if they misused campaign resources. The letter then asked recipients to destroy or return any information they might have taken from the Trump campaign’s vast Rolodex of donor contacts.

A senior adviser to Trump insisted that the directive wasn’t in response to “a particular act” but merely to “make sure no one was misusing valuable campaign data.”

But inside Trumpworld, the episode sparked a game of whodunit over who had the audacity to abuse the confidential donor list, withGOP sources speculating that a pair of ex-Trump campaign hands were working to amass a donor profile of their own. And it added to the cold war that has broken out among competing factions that are seeking to capitalize on their time with Trump to score new business and political clients.

“These are people who didn’t like each other four months ago and now they all have a common interest: how to get some coin out of the Trump post-presidency,” said a former senior administration official, who like others would talk about internal squabbles only on condition of anonymity.

For staff of a losing presidential candidate, the weeks and months after that loss present difficult career choices. Many choose to move on from politics altogether, worn down from the days on the trail. Others take time off or explore the lucrative fields of consultancy or K Street.

For some Trump aides, the landscape has been different. Getting jobs in corporate America has been difficult, owing to the often toxic reputation of the 45th president, especially after the Jan. 6 riots on Capitol Hill. Their boss, meanwhile, continues to float the idea that he will run for president again, and he is in the process of setting up a political — and, potentially, social media — apparatus aimed at cementing him as a lasting fixture in GOP politics. That has incentivized his onetime aides to stay in the game. It's also sparked infighting, as those aides view maintaining their MAGA bona fides as critical for landing jobs on current and future Republican campaigns.

Within Trump’s orbit, former aides and advisers have been squabbling for direct access to the former president as they filter in and out of Mar-a-Lago. Privately, they have accused others of overstating that access in order to score House and Senate clients. There have been whisper campaigns that some former staffers are misleading potential campaigns by telling them that, if hired, their candidate would have a better chance of securing Trump’s endorsement. Other former aides who have promised to organize posh fundraisers for incumbent Republicans and GOP candidates at Mar-a-Lago have become targets of mockery among their peers, who insist there is no single gatekeeper to Trump’s gilded club, where donors regularly gather to hear from the party’s rising stars.

Former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Recalling a recent fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago for one incumbent Republican, a Trump aide was incredulous that another had claimed to those in attendance that he was instrumental for arranging such gatherings — and, naturally, should be hired as a fundraising consultant for them.

“I don’t begrudge anyone for wanting to make money ... but don’t be so brazen about it,” the aide said.

Several former campaign officials and top White House aides who’ve retained access to Trump — either through regular meetings at Mar-a-Lago or weekly phone calls — have launched their own ventures since the 2020 election. As they’ve tried to ingratiate themselves with new clients and donors, they have settled into different camps, each wary of the others.

Former campaign manager Bill Stepien teamed up with deputy campaign manager Justin Clark and adviser Nick Trainer to form a political consulting firm; former 2016 campaign aides Corey Lewandowski and Dave Bossie have been tasked with creating a new super PAC for the former president; former White House policy adviser Stephen Miller is in the midst of launching a new legal group; and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is working for the Conservative Partnership Institute, which has a donor summit planned in Palm Beach next week. Others, like Sergio Gor, the former chief of staff for the Trump campaign’s finance committee, and Caroline Wren, another Trump fundraiser, have been working closely with Republican candidates in 2022 races.

“Trump is surrounded by people who are telling him ‘you need us,’ but they really need him,” said the person close to the former president.

Trump spokesperson Jason Miller, who is in regular contact with the former president and the aides currently working for him, disputed claims of friction inside Trump’s orbit. Instead, Miller said he’s never seen such harmony.

“Having been around Trump World for five years now, I would argue that here’s the least amount of ally competition or conflict at this point than I’ve ever seen,” he said. “The people who the president has kept in his orbit are all true believers who understand that he makes his own decisions, and we have very specific roles supporting him.”

Another former aide who is still in frequent contact with Trump’s advisers agreed that the skeleton political operation is “getting along.”

But the whisper campaigns and mudslinging have been noticed well beyond Trump’s immediate team of aides. Some of the former president’s most trusted external allies have personally urged him to dump his current squad, claiming that those he’s surrounded himself with are singularly focused on enriching themselves or too clumsy to be running a successful post-presidential operation.

“They’re competing for his money. I’ve told the president, ‘You need to be cognizant of this,’’' said a former senior Trump administration official. “He does not need a huge organization right now peppered with crazy monthly retainers and unnecessary overhead.”

Trump himself is aware of the dynamics at play, according to multiple people who have either had direct discussions with the former president or are familiar with the situation. Some of his closest aides say they wish he would lie low until the 2022 midterm cycle kicks into full gear, a move that they believe would help mitigate the private clashes and confusion that some feel have consumed his current orbit.

But the chaos may not be disorienting for Trump. From the earliest days of his 2016 campaign through the end of his presidency, the former New York real estate mogul has surrounded himself with strong personalities and constantly shifted his favor from one clique to the next.

“Trump has always encouraged that kind of behavior,” said a former aide. “But it is difficult to do the job like that.”

The warning shot fired over unauthorized use of the Trump Victory donor list was, for many, a clear example of the eagerness that some Trump aides or former staff have to exploit what one 2016 Trump campaign official described as a “Wild West” environment at Mar-a-Lago.

“Right now, it’s like a daycare if you took all the adults away. There’s virtually nobody with organizational skills left,” said a person familiar with Trump’s operation.

Source

Trump Faces New Lawsuit Over Capitol Insurrection

2021-04-07T17:08:43.028Z

The lawsuit, which claims that former President Donald Trump and his allies incited the mob that attacked the Capitol, is the second major legal action against Trump in connection to the riot.

US President Donald Trump speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House on January 6, 2021MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

House impeachment manager and Intelligence Committee Chairman Eric Swalwell is suing former President Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Republican Rep. Mo Brooks for inciting the violent Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, aiming to hold them liable for injuries and destruction that occurred.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, also alleges that Trump "poses a risk of inciting future political violence."

It's the second major lawsuit filed against Trump in connection to the riot. Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and the NAACP sued Trump, Giuliani and two far-right groups last month, alleging that they violated a 150-year-old law by conspiring to incite the riot.

Swalwell's lawsuit makes the same claim, accusing Trump and his allies of violating the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era law that protects against violent conspiracies meant to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties. But the lawsuit also makes broader claims, suing under a claim of negligence and alleging that the defendants broke Washington, D.C., laws, including the District's Anti-Terrorism Act.

The lawsuit also alleges that Trump and his allies aided and abetted the mob and inflicted emotional distress on Swalwell, who was inside the House chamber as rioters attempted to breach the doors.

The lawsuit resembles the House impeachment managers' case against Trump and focuses on Trump and his allies' role in inciting the political rally attendants who were not part of extremist groups already bent on acting violently.

It cites the defendants' actions leading up to and at the rally on Jan. 6, as well as during and after the riot. Trump and his allies repeatedly promoted the claim that the election was rigged and that Trump was denied a legitimate victory.

"The Defendants, in short, convinced the mob that something was occurring that – if actually true – might indeed justify violence to some, and then sent that mob to the Capitol with violence-laced calls for immediate action," the lawsuit says.

Trump was acquitted by the Senate last month of "incitement of insurrection" in a 57-43 vote that fell largely along party lines. Seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting to convict the former president.

Friday's lawsuit notably cites a speech given by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell after the impeachment vote, in which McConnell – who voted to acquit Trump – condemned the former president's actions and noted that Trump could still be held civilly liable.

Swalwell's lawsuit seeks monetary and punitive damages, and a requirement that the defendants give a week of notice before future rallies and demonstrations.

Trump is currently the subject of a number of investigations and criminal probes. The Supreme Court last week cleared the way for prosecutors in New York to obtain Trump's tax records, dealing a huge blow to the former president who fought a lengthy legal battle in a bid to keep his finances hidden.

Source

The Supreme Court vacates ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter.

2021-04-07T17:03:31.951Z

Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion reflected frustration about letting private companies decide what the public may read and see. Doug Mills/The New York Times

The Supreme Court on Monday vacated an appeals court ruling that President Donald J. Trump had violated the First Amendment by blocking people from his Twitter account after they posted critical comments.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled in 2019 that Mr. Trump’s account was a public forum from which he was powerless to exclude people based on their viewpoints.

The Supreme Court’s move was expected, as Mr. Trump is no longer president and Twitter has permanently suspended his account.

More surprising was a 12-page concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas musing on what he called the dangerous power a few private companies have over free speech.

“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors,” he wrote. “Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

No other justice joined the opinion, and Justice Thomas’s views on the First Amendment can be idiosyncratic. But his opinion reflected widespread frustration, particularly among conservatives, about letting private companies decide what the public may read and see.

The appeals court “feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves”.

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. Source

Trump argues that his fund-raising was ‘done legally,’ in response to a Times investigation.

2021-04-07T16:58:33.892Z

Recurring donations swelled former President Donald J. Trump’s campaign coffers in September and October, just as his operation’s finances were deteriorating. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Former President Donald J. Trump on Monday responded to a New York Times investigation revealing that his re-election operation had refunded more than 10 percent of what it had raised online — $122 million of $1.2 billion — and that a flood of refunds had come after his campaign set up weekly recurring donations by default for online donors. Contributors had to uncheck a box to opt out, and the box became increasingly hard to find as his campaign’s financial struggles grew.

“Our fundraising efforts, working together with the Republican party, were all done legally,” Mr. Trump said in a statement.

The Times reported that many donors had unwittingly become repeat contributors to Mr. Trump’s campaign because of the prechecked boxes. Retirees, military veterans, nurses and political operatives were among those ensnared. Many complained to their credit card companies and banks that they had been victims of fraud.

Records show that the Trump operation refunded 10.7 percent of what it raised in 2020 on the digital donation-processing site WinRed, compared with a 2.2 percent refund rate for President Biden’s operation on ActBlue, the Democratic platform.

How Refunds to Trump Donors Soared in 2020

Refunds are shown as the percentage of money received by each operation to date via WinRed and ActBlue.

Note: Donations and refunds to above President Donald J. Trump accommodate those fabricated via WinRed for the afterward organizations: Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Trump Victory, Trump Make America Great Again Committee, Save America, and the Republican National Committee. Donations and refunds to President Biden accommodate those fabricated via ActBlue for the afterward groups: Biden for President, Biden Victory Fund, Biden Action Fund, Biden Fight Fund, and the Democratic National Committee. -- Source: WinRed and ActBlue -- By Eleanor Lutz and Rachel Shorey

Mr. Trump, who did not rebut any of the figures in the article, focused on a different number, arguing that his campaign’s “dispute rate” — the tally of formal complaints to credit cards — had been less than 1 percent of transactions. “A very low number,” he said.

That would still represent about 200,000 disputed donations, which his campaign had previously said added up to $19.7 million.

Mr. Trump’s campaign has previously declined to say if the former president personally knew about the prechecked box scheme, and he did not speak to that in his statement. But he did not denounce the tactics.

“Before our two campaigns, 2016 and 2020, Republicans would always lose small dollar donations,” Mr. Trump said in his statement. “Now we win, or do very well, because we are the Party of Working Americans, and we beat the Democrats at their own game. We learned from liberal ActBlue — and now we’re better than they are!”

Shane Goldmacher is a national political reporter and was previously the chief political correspondent for the Metro desk. Before joining The Times, he worked at Politico, where he covered national Republican politics and the 2016 presidential campaign.

Source

Ex-Trump Official Fined and Barred From Government Over R.N.C. Video

2021-04-07T16:41:54.637Z

Lynne Patton recruited and interviewed public housing tenants in New York City for a pro-Trump re-election video. The residents accused her of tricking them into participating.

Lynne Patton worked for the Department of Housing and Urban Development after serving as a personal assistant for the Trump family. Kathy Willens/Associated Press

The video aired on the final night of the Republican National Convention in August, a two-minute clip featuring four New York City public housing tenants praising President Donald J. Trump’s record and bashing the city’s mayor.

But within hours of the broadcast, three of the tenants said they were tricked into appearing in the video, did not support Mr. Trump and accused a top federal housing official, Lynne Patton, of orchestrating the production and misleading them about its intentions.

While Ms. Patton had claimed the White House signed off on her involvement, a federal agency on Tuesday found that Ms. Patton had violated a federal law known as the Hatch Act that bars most federal employees from using their government position to engage in political activities.

Ms. Patton admitted to the violation, the agency said, and agreed in a settlement to pay a $1,000 fine and not to serve in the federal government for at least four years. She left her job at the Department of Housing and Urban Development at the end of Mr. Trump’s term in January.

“By using information and NYCHA connections available to her solely by virtue of her HUD position, Patton improperly harnessed the authority of her federal position to assist the Trump campaign,” the Office of Special Counsel, the agency that enforces the Hatch Act, said in a statement. NYCHA, or the New York City Housing Authority, oversees the public housing system.

In her three years as the top regional administrator over federal housing in New York and New Jersey, Ms. Patton said she helped improve New York’s troubled public housing system. But Ms. Patton had also carved out a role as a Trump cheerleader who often mixed politics and governance.

She was among a number of midlevel political appointees in the Trump administration who had little if any experience in their fields and who used their positions to promote the president and his views, often amplifying falsehoods and other misinformation.

On Tuesday, Ms. Patton, who was a personal assistant to the Trump family before working for the federal government, said in an email that she did not regret having created the video.

“Unfortunately, after consulting multiple Hatch Act lawyers post-employment, receiving incorrect and/or incomplete legal advice, even in good faith, from your own agency does not an affirmative defense make,” Ms. Patton wrote.

In the email, Ms. Patton falsely claimed that the tenants had recanted their allegations against her and had acknowledged that they knew how the video would be used. She interviewed them over four hours in a New York City Housing Authority building last summer with a video crew.

Sign up for the New York Today Newsletter: Each morning, get the latest on New York businesses, arts, sports, dining, style and more.

Claudia Perez, one of the four tenants who appeared in the video, on Tuesday reiterated her assertion that Ms. Patton had deceived the group into believing the interview would be used to highlight chronic problems at the housing authority. Ms. Perez, who said she voted for President Biden in the November election, said she would not have participated in a pro-Trump video.

“She just wants attention, and I’m not going to give it to her,” Ms. Perez said in response to Ms. Patton’s remarks on Tuesday, adding that she deserved more severe punishment. “I don’t think it was stern enough.”

After the video was broadcast, several federal watchdog groups, including the Campaign for Accountability, filed complaints with the Office of Special Counsel urging an investigation into Ms. Patton’s role in the production of the clip.

In a statement, Michelle Kuppersmith, the executive director of the Campaign for Accountability, described Ms. Patton as a repeat offender of the Hatch Act. Ms. Kuppersmith said she was pleased that the special counsel had followed up on the complaint.

“Laws like the Hatch Act exist for a reason and we hope this sends a message to other officials that violating the law has consequences,” she said.

The video was not the first time that Ms. Patton was found to have run afoul of the Hatch Act. In 2019, the Office of Special Counsel determined that she violated the law when she displayed a Trump campaign hat in her New York office and for “liking” political tweets.

While Ms. Patton worked for the federal government she also pursued a role in a proposed reality TV show featuring two other prominent Trump supporters, Candace Owens and Katrina Pierson. Ms. Patton claimed that a production company had wanted her to appear on a reality show for several years.

To avoid a possible Hatch Act violation, she offered to temporarily resign or take an unpaid absence from HUD so she could film the series, according to records obtained by the American Oversight, a liberal watchdog group. The show, which she told HUD could include scenes from Trump campaign events, never materialized.

At the time of the convention video, Ms. Patton was the HUD administrator for the New York region and had some oversight of the city’s public housing agency.

She entered the orbit of the Trump family around 2009 after meeting Michael Cohen, the former lawyer for Mr. Trump, who connected her with Eric Trump, one of the former president’s sons.

Ms. Patton first joined HUD as an assistant under Ben Carson, then the department secretary, and then relocated to its regional office in Lower Manhattan.

Ms. Patton said she had produced tangible results, including spurring the city’s housing authority, long plagued by mismanagement and substandard conditions, to hire companies to help clean its 326 developments.

In the final months of the 2020 presidential campaign, Ms. Patton echoed some of Mr. Trump’s most outlandish falsehoods about the election and his opponent, Mr. Biden.

In a Facebook post last July, Ms. Patton suggested that she had no interest in helping tackle the homelessness crisis in New York because its leaders opposed Mr. Trump. “EVERY Democratic run city deserves EVERYTHING coming to it,” she wrote.

Matthew Haag covers the intersection of real estate and politics in the New York region. He previously was a general assignment and breaking news reporter at The Times and worked as an education reporter at The Dallas Morning News. Source

Even Biden keeps Trump's policy of keeping landmines in the U.S. arsenal for the moment.

2021-04-07T16:19:53.320Z

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department announced Tuesday that it would retain the Trump administration’s policy and keep antipersonnel land mines in its arsenal, reserving the right to use them in war.

Antipersonnel land mines, small explosive weapons that are buried underground or laid on the surface and meant to kill or maim people, can remain deadly for many decades. Louai Beshara/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

In a statement, Mike Howard, a Pentagon spokesman, called such weapons “a vital tool in conventional warfare” that the military “cannot responsibly forgo, particularly when faced with substantial and potentially overwhelming enemy forces in the early stages of combat.”

The announcement drew swift condemnation from human rights groups. The Pentagon press secretary, John Kirby, subsequently addressed the issue with reporters, saying Mr. Howard’s words were “accurate and factual,” but he added that the land mine policy was under review.

The current policy dates to Jan. 31, 2020, when Mark T. Esper, the secretary of defense under President Donald J. Trump, announced a major change to the Pentagon’s policy on antipersonnel land mines, small explosive weapons that are buried underground or laid on the surface and meant to kill or maim people. Their use was permitted so long as the weapons had self-destruct features or could self-deactivate.

Mr. Esper’s decision followed Mr. Trump’s cancellation of a presidential directive signed by President Barack Obama in 2014 that limited the use of so-called persistent mines, which stay deadly indefinitely, to the Korean Peninsula

“We are analyzing Secretary Esper’s decision, his policy of January 2020,” Mr. Kirby told reporters on Tuesday. “When we complete that analysis of that decision, then we will be able to have a better idea of whether or not further review of our land mine policy is warranted.”

Older types of antipersonnel land mines can remain deadly for many decades and are banned by 164 countries. Their use has been condemned because of the indiscriminate manner in which they operate: Most will explode when stepped upon, no matter whether by an enemy fighter or a noncombatant.

Antitank land mines, which contain larger explosive charges and are devised to disable or destroy armored vehicles, are not banned under international law.

In 1997, a treaty to ban antipersonnel land mines was opened for signature in Ottawa, Canada, and went into effect in March 1999. Often referred to as the Ottawa Convention, it prevents party nations from using or developing land mines meant to harm people, and commits those countries to destroying their existing stockpiles. The United States has refused to sign the treaty, along with China, India, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan and Iran, among others.

That President Biden might continue to support the use of antipersonnel land mines came as a disappointment to many human rights groups, which expected him to sign the treaty, based on comments he made on the campaign trail.

“This land mine policy starkly sets the U.S. apart from its allies,” said Adotei Akwei of Amnesty International. “It is in direct opposition with President Biden’s aspirations to be a global human rights leader — for the United States to truly be a leader, it must change its land mines policy as soon as possible.”

For decades, Democratic lawmakers like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California have opposed the Pentagon’s support for the weapons.

“I have spoken to President Biden about this over many years, and I’m confident that his administration will do the right thing and renounce these indiscriminate weapons that have no place in the arsenal of civilized nations,” Mr. Leahy said.

At the United Nations, where the Mine Action Service plays an important role in clearing antipersonnel mines from former war zones, the Defense Department’s reiteration of the Trump-era policy seemed to come as a surprise.

Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesman for the United Nations, said he had no immediate comment. But his answer was emphatic when asked whether the United States and other countries that had not signed the treaty banning land mines should do so.

“The money that is spent clearing them, the damage that is left by land mines that are left behind, the children that are killed, the land that cannot be used because land mines continue to be there, our stance against land mines has been very clear and will remain so,” he said.

John Ismay reported from Washington, and Rick Gladstone from New York. Source