

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.
Earlier today, the New York Immigration Coalition and numerous other organizations held a press conference ahead of a rally this evening to oppose a new rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that makes immigrant families choose between using public health, food, and housing programs, and obtaining a visa or legal residency in the U.S.
If the rule is approved, legal immigrants will be at serious risk of being unable to renew their visas or become permanent residents if they apply for certain federal assistance programs. The rule affects programs for children, many of whom are U.S. citizens in mixed status families. The proposed rule would penalize many immigrants for using federal assistance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare Part D and subsidized housing support.
"Trump's new rule will force immigrant families to make an impossible choice between legal status and the health and safety of their loved ones. We have 60 days to fight back to stop the administration or infants will go hungry, children will lose their health insurance, and immigrant families will struggle to keep a roof over their heads. Our country has always helped generations of immigrants succeed by supporting them, now is the the time to speak out," said Steven Choi, Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
The public can submit comments about the proposed rule change once it has been published on the Federal Register.
"Parents should never have to choose between feeding their child, or providing them with the medical care they need, and their immigration status. These proposed changes could impact everyone from newborns to the elderly, hurting not just our immigrant communities, but their United States Citizen family members as well. This is simply un-American. I urge us all to continue to speak our and make our voices heard-- we cannot allow this administration to move forward with these changes," said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
"The Trump administration's new proposal would have a devastating impact on immigrant New Yorkers and their working families by forcing them to choose between putting food on the table and long-term stability," said New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer. "This rule should not be used to play politics with the lives of those seeking refuge, and it is time for us to confront its racist and classist history. As the White House continues to demonize immigrant families, New York City must do everything it can to fight back against this cruel policy that only undermines our values."
"This is yet another attack on our hard-working, immigrant communities. This proposed new rule by the Trump Administration is nothing but cruel. Now, the federal government wants to force immigrants to choose between feeding their families and putting a roof over their heads or seeking a green card to remain in our nation. This is detestable. Unfortunately, many families have already dropped out of public benefits programs out of fear because of aggressive anti-immigrant federal policies, and more will follow when news about these proposed changes spreads across our communities. As a city of immigrants, I assure you that the City Council will do all that is humanly possible to fight against these unjust measures," said Council Speaker Corey Johnson.
"The proposed "public charge" rule is a shameful attempt to punish working class immigrants for accessing the health care, housing and nutrition programs they need to support their families and survive in our country," said Alison Hirsh, vice president of 32BJ SEIU a union with 163,000 members on the East Coast including thousands of immigrants. "With poverty wages, unaffordable health care options and rampant food insecurity across the country, a reliance on public assistance is not a fair indication of how much a person contributes to their communities. This is a blatant attack on working families and people of color that we must denounce before it can become law. This is not who we are as a country."
"I have been practicing medicine in public health systems for more than 30 years. I've never met a doctor - Democrat or Republican -- who cared about the immigration status of their patient. We've taken an oath to care for the sick and can't imagine the devastating impact this mean-spirited proposal could have if our patients end up having to choose between getting proper medical treatment or pursue their legal status," said Dr. Mitchell Katz, President and CEO, NYC Health + Hospitals. "I hope this radical attempt to undermine the health and well-being of middle and working class immigrant communities can be prevented. In the meantime, it's incredibly important to note that this proposal is by no means final, and access to services like our public health facilities has not changed. NYC Health + Hospitals is open to all without exception, and we urge our immigrant community to continue to seek care without fear."
"This proposal is another attack by the Trump Administration against family-based immigration, particularly against immigrants of color," said Hasan Shafiqullah, Attorney-in-Charge of the Immigration Law Unit at The Legal Aid Society. "If adopted, the rule will create a nationwide health crisis impacting millions, and deter families from seeking vital medical care when they need it the most. It also would affect access by lawfully present non-citizens to basic food, housing, and other forms or support for meeting critical needs. This proposal is radical and dangerous, and wholly against our values and principles as a nation founded by immigrants."
"This rule is a disgraceful attack on our society's most vulnerable and goes against New York's values. Immigrant families should never have to choose between their safety and being able to put provide food and basic health care to their children," said Christine Quinn, President & CEO of Win, the largest provider of shelter to women and families in New York City. "Thank you to the New York Immigration Coalition for leading the charge to make New York City a safe haven for all immigrants."
"This cruel and callous proposed revision to what constitutes 'a public charge' is devastating to immigrants seeking to reunite their families, violates longstanding protections for people living with HIV/AIDS under disability discrimination law, essentially operates as a backdoor reinstatement of the HIV Immigration Ban, and threatens the public health," said African Services Committee's Director of Advocacy, Amanda Lugg.
"The proposed public charge rule is one of the widest-reaching attacks on our communities to come out of the Federal Administration," said Amy Torres, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Chinese-American Planning Council, "it enshrines family separation by forcing families to choose between their immigration status and reunification and meeting their basic needs for safety, nutrition, and stability. Immigrants should not face additional barriers toward building economic security and stability, and their immigration status or that of their families should not be held hostage when they do."
"Since day one, the Trump administration has made their anti-immigrant agenda very clear. It is unacceptable and immoral to force people to choose between their health and a green card," said Lisa David, President and CEO of Public Health Solutions. "The proposed rule has already led to significant drop-offs among our immigrant clients who rely on food and nutrition benefits to help feed their families. We will do everything in our power to fight back against this discriminatory rule and ensure our clients are still able to access critical public benefits."
"Less than one in six US residents who use public benefit programs like Medicaid, SNAP and section 8 housing are immigrants. As a pediatrician, these programs are absolutely essential for ensuring that the children I serve can stay healthy. Immigrant parents, like all parents, have a right to basic needs- health insurance, healthy food and affordable housing. These proposed changes to the public charge rule not only cause worry and stress, but put the lives of immigrant families and the positive contribution they make everyday, in severe jeopardy," said Omolara Thomas Uwemedimo, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Occupational Medicine, Epidemiology and Prevention, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell; Program Director, GLOhBAL (Global Learning. Optimizing health. Building Alliances Locally), Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York; Adjunct Assistant Professor, MPH Program, Hofstra University School of Health Professions.
Natalia Aristizabal, Co-Director of Organizing at Make the Road New York said: "We condemn this proposal by the Trump Administration to target low-income immigrant families to further his xenophobic agenda. This proposal attacks and seeks to punish eligible immigrants from adjusting their status for accessing basic necessities. All families, regardless of immigration status, deserve access to health and nutrition and that is why we will remain committed to continue to keep on fighting back to protect and defend each other."
Background:
DHS's rule would replace existing guidelines that define a "public charge." Currently, someone designated as a "public charge" is primarily dependent on a limited set of public benefits. This rule expands the definition of "public charge" to include an array of programs upon which working families depend.
Before being enacted, the proposed rule is subject to a 60-day public comment period. Public comments can be submitted by anyone once they are published on the Federal Register.
If enacted, immigration officials must consider the "totality of circumstances" to determine if a visa applicant is likely to depend on government assistance in the future. Circumstances include:
Under federal law, certain immigrant populations are exempt from public charge consideration, including:
Legal permanent residents are not subject to public charge scrutiny when they apply for citizenship. Undocumented immigrants and many other immigrant groups are already barred from using federal benefit programs.
Under federal law, certain immigrant populations are exempt from public charge consideration, including:
Legal permanent residents are not subject to public charge scrutiny when they apply for citizenship. Undocumented immigrants and many other immigrant groups are already barred from using federal benefit programs.
The New York Immigration Coalition aims to achieve a fairer and more just society that values the contributions of immigrants and extends opportunity to all. The NYIC promotes immigrants' full civic participation, fosters their leadership, and provides a unified voice and a vehicle for collective action for New York's diverse immigrant communities.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.