

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Maria Archuleta, ACLU National, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Dotty Griffith, ACLU of Texas, (512) 478-7300 x 106 or 923-1909; dgriffith@aclutx.org
The
U.S. Department of State (DOS) has agreed to implement new procedures
designed to ensure the fair and prompt review of U.S. passport
applications by Mexican Americans whose births in Texas were attended
by midwives. Under the agreement, no eligible applicant should be
denied a passport.
The
U.S. Department of State (DOS) has agreed to implement new procedures
designed to ensure the fair and prompt review of U.S. passport
applications by Mexican Americans whose births in Texas were attended
by midwives. Under the agreement, no eligible applicant should be
denied a passport.
The procedural changes are the
result of a settlement agreement following a class action lawsuit filed
by a coalition of civil rights and legal organizations including the
American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, the international
law firm Hogan & Hartson LLP, and Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.
"The new procedures agreed to by the
government are aimed at restoring the core American values of fairness
and equality to the ways in which it issues U.S. passports," said
Vanita Gupta, staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program who
worked on the case along with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
"Citizens will no longer be denied a passport solely because of their
race, ancestry or because they happened to be born at home with a
midwife."
The settlement comes at a
particularly crucial time. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI), which went into effect June 1, requires every American who
wishes to exit or enter or the United States to have a valid U.S.
passport or passport card. Previously, citizens needed only a valid
U.S. driver's license to travel between the U.S. and Mexico or Canada.
"For U.S. citizens who live in the
Southwest, a passport is now as necessary as a driver's license," said
Lisa Graybill, Legal Director for the ACLU of Texas. "We are relieved
that US citizens who work, shop, receive medical care, and have family
on both sides of the border will no longer be in danger of losing their
jobs, risking their health, or being separated from family members
simply because of the circumstances of their birth."
Although midwifery has been a common
practice for more than a century - particularly in rural and other
traditionally underserved communities - the lawsuit charged that DOS
was violating the due process and equal protection rights of virtually
all midwife-delivered U.S. citizens living in the southern border
region by forcing them to provide an excessive number of documents
normally not required to prove their citizenship. Then, even after the
applicants supplied further proof of their citizenship, DOS responded
by summarily closing their applications without explanation.
"Because DOS lacked clear standards,
countless passport applicants were treated arbitrarily, said Lisa
Brodyaga, the attorney for Refugio del Rio Grande. "With this
settlement, applicants born with midwives are guaranteed the same full
and fair consideration of their applications as everyone else. This is
especially critical now given that the June 1st deadline of WHTI has
passed."
The lawsuit also charged that the
Department's practices were violating the Administrative Procedure Act,
which was enacted as a safeguard against arbitrary and capricious
government agency procedures. During the course of the litigation,
several of the plaintiffs were granted passports even though they had
been denied previously on the very same showing of evidence of
citizenship.
Pending court approval, DOS will
train its staff on how to fairly weigh all the evidence provided in
passport applications and how to avoid improperly subjecting people
whose births were assisted by midwives in Texas and along the
U.S.-Mexico border to heightened scrutiny in reviewing their passport
applications. All denials will be automatically reviewed by a
three-member panel comprised of experienced DOS staff members, and if
that panel also denies an application, DOS must communicate the
specific reasons for the denial to the applicant. The applicant can
then challenge the denial and ask DOS to reconsider its decision.
Additionally, anyone birthed by a
midwife who has filed an application for a passport between April 2003
and September 15, 2008 and, with a few exceptions, whose application
was not expressly "denied," can re-apply for free. DOS will be setting
up mobile units across the border on specific dates to assist those
reapplying.
DOS has also agreed to restrictions
on a list it maintains of suspect midwives and other birth attendants,
which it purported to use to justify its discriminatory policies.
Importantly, DOS will not deny a passport application simply because
the applicant's birth attendant or midwife is on the list. Furthermore,
DOS will conduct regular reviews of the list to ensure that no one is
included unless DOS has a reasonable, lawful basis to do so. These
measures will help ensure that DOS does force passport applicants to
take unnecessary measures to prove their citizenship and does not
arbitrarily deny passports merely because the individual was born to a
suspect midwife.
"We're very happy that we were able
to come to an agreement with the government that recognizes every U.S.
citizen's constitutional right to be treated with fairness and
equality," said Adam K. Levin of Hogan & Hartson. "You can't deny
basic rights to an entire group of U.S. citizens because their parents
did not deliver them in hospitals."
The attorneys working on the case
include Gupta and Dennis Parker of the ACLU Racial Justice Program;
Lucas Guttentag and Jennifer Chang Newell of the of the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project; Robin Goldfaden, formerly of the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project; Lisa Graybill of the ACLU of Texas; Levin,
Thomas Widor, David Weiner and Melissa Henke of Hogan & Hartson;
and Lisa Brodyaga of Refugio del Rio Grande, Inc.
A copy of the settlement agreement
and notice about the court-approval process for this class action
settlement is available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/40046lgl20090626.html
A copy of the complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/36669lgl20080909.html
Podcasts with individuals who were
denied passports, community leaders in the Southwest, and attorneys who
worked on the case are available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/gen/passports.html
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza... Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector," said one critic.
A US congressional committee on Thursday rejected an amendment to strip a provision from next year's Pentagon funding bill aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli militaries under the guise of reducing aid.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to strike Section 224—which would establish a formal "United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative"—from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. The proposed NDAA authorizes $1.15 trillion in baseline military spending, while the Trump administration’s full defense request seeks an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in armed forces and related funding for the coming fiscal year.
Section 224 would require the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology cooperation.
In Thursday's voice vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) from both parties rejected the amendment to remove Section 2024 from the NDAA, with only Khanna and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) backing the measure.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called Section 224 "my plan."
While proponents of Section 224 contend that the measure would reduce US taxpayer funding for Israel, Khanna argued that the provision amounts to a blank check for a country that most Americans oppose sending more aid to.
“The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do," the congressman said Thursday while promoting his amendment. "The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district, yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American people what we should do."
“I am for Team America," Khanna added. "I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that's what [President] Donald Trump ran on. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”
In a letter to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.)—who is not on the HASC—Netanyahu said he is "heartened" by Section 224's plan to “develop a new Memorandum of Understanding with the United States government” that will reduce “US financial military assistance over the next decade” and replace it with “a new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction, and mutual investment."
The US has provided more than $20 billion in armed aid to Israel during the Biden and Trump administrations since Netanyahu launched the genocidal war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The current 10-year Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Israel, signed in 2016 during former President Barack Obama's tenure, provided Israel with $38 billion in US military aid and expires in 2028.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has partnered with Khanna on introducing or supporting war powers resolutions aimed at curbing Trump's ability to wage unconstitutional wars in countries including Yemen, Venezuela, and Iran—said last month that if Section 224 made it out of committee, he would work with Khanna to "offer an amendment to strip it from the bill on the floor."
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is urging Americans to contact their members of Congress to tell them to reject Section 224.
"This is not 'America First.' It is Israel First," ADC argues on its website. "The resolution language attached to this proposal gives it away: it expresses support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initiative to transition the US–Israel relationship toward mutual defense cooperation and joint economic investment. This language turns Congress into a vehicle for advancing Netanyahu’s agenda and asks the American people to treat it as their own national security policy."
"Section 224 would move US support for Israel away from the more transparent foreign aid framework and into a maze of Pentagon procurement, licensing, data-sharing, and backdoor deals that are harder for Congress, taxpayers, and future administrations to monitor, cap, condition, or unwind," the group continued. "Concerns of undefined 'network integration' and 'data fusion' should alarm every American who cares about sovereignty, privacy, civil liberties, and democratic oversight."
"At a time when Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, exporting surveillance technologies used against activists and journalists around the world, marketing military technology tested on Palestinians, and carrying out terrorist attacks as seen in the cell phone [bombings] in Lebanon, Congress should be cutting off military support—not integrating the US military and Israeli defense sector and making accountability harder than ever," ADC added.
In an opinion piece published this week by Common Dreams, Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote that "lawmakers should reject Section 224 from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel’s military at a time when a growing number of Americans oppose Israel’s actions in the region."
"This unprecedented level of US-Israeli military integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of US military assistance," Freeman said.
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said US Rep. Shontel Brown.
Rep. Shontel Brown on Thursday confronted US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for her past boasts about kicking millions of Americans off food assistance.
During a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Brown grilled Rollins for saying it was "good news" that 4.5 million fewer people are now enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) than before President Donald Trump took office last year.
"The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off the program to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Brown. "Families and children are not leaving the SNAP program because they are doing better."
Rep. @ShontelMBrown: Recently, you described it as good news that roughly 4.5 million people have been moved off SNAP. The reality is that 4.5 million people were kicked off to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not doing better--
Rollins: They are. pic.twitter.com/qcB2WlAHLv
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 4, 2026
"They are," Rollins replied, without citing any evidence.
"They are being forced off because of eligibility changes, new administrative barriers, and states preparing for the enormous cost shift that they know is coming," Brown shot back. "And you know this. So I'm really struggling to understand why you think pulling the rug out from under children, seniors, veterans, and families that have fallen on hard times [is] good news."
Rollins then baselessly claimed that all of the people who had been removed from SNAP had been added to the program fraudulently, including "200,000 dead people."
The Associated Press last month published a fact check that examined a similar Rollins claim about the number of people removed from food assistance over the last year, and determined that the most likely culprit were changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a 2025 budget law that slashed funding to SNAP by $186 billion over a decade.
"What we’ve seen in terms of the data is that the trend in participation declines seems to be related to the program being harder to access,” Roger Figueroa, an assistant professor at Cornell University, explained to the AP.