SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
NO BAN Act Coalition Says "Goodbye to the Muslim and African Ban"
WASHINGTON
Today, the NO BAN Act Coalition is celebrating the end of the Muslim and African Ban and calling on Congress to take the next step and prevent similar bans from being enacted again. The NO BAN Act Coalition is an alliance of national and local civil rights, faith and community groups who have been working tirelessly to support passage of the NO BAN Act, a landmark Muslim civil rights bill that is included in the U.S. Citizenship Act, the Biden administration's day one immigration legislation. The NO BAN Act, introduced by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), was passed with a bipartisan majority in the House on July 22, 2020. The following is a joint statement from 81 organizational members of the coalition on the repeal of the Muslim and African Ban:
"Goodbye to the Muslim and African Ban. Almost four years ago, one of President Trump's first acts in office was to ban Muslims from the United States. Three years later, he expanded the ban to include several African countries. Today, it's fitting that one of Biden's first acts is to rescind the Muslim and African Ban. This is a momentous occasion for the millions of Americans who were separated by the ban and those who stood up against this injustice at airports nationwide. Thank you, President Biden for staying true to your promise to repeal this bigoted policy immediately.
The Muslim and African Ban was never about national security, it was always rooted in bigotry and called into question what values America stands for. However, just ending the ban through an executive order won't stop this from happening again. That's why we applaud the historic inclusion of the NO BAN Act in the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.
The House of Representatives took the historic step of passing the NO BAN Act this past summer. It took years of work to break through the multiple barriers that stood in the way. Many members of Congress had never co-sponsored or voted for legislation to protect American Muslims from discrimination, the House of Representatives had never even held a hearing on the rights of American Muslims and no chamber of Congress had ever passed a Muslim civil rights bill.
But the NO BAN Act passed with a bipartisan majority because lifting this one ban is not enough. It's vital that we ensure that no president ever again can ban people because of their faith or nationality. That's why Congress must take this important next step and pass the NO BAN Act immediately."
Signed,
Muslim Advocates
AFL-CIO
African Communities Together
America Indivisible
American Humanist Association
American Muslim Advisory Council
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Arab American Civic Council
Arab American Institute (AAI)
Asian Counseling and Referral Service
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Bend the Arc Jewish Action
Black Alliance for Just Immigration
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Center for American Progress
Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism-California State University, San Bernardino
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Church World Service
Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes
Connecticut Shoreline Indivisible
Constitutional Accountability Center
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Emgage Action
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Foreign Policy for America
Forward as One
Foundation for Ethnic Understanding
Franciscan Action Network
Franciscan Sisters of the POOR
Free Press Action
Global Project Against Hate and Extremism
HIAS
Human Rights Campaign
ICNA CSJ
Immigration Hub
Interfaith Alliance
International Refugee Assistance Project
Islamic Networks Group (ING)
Islamic Society of North America
Japanese American Citizens League
Jewish Voice for Peace
KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights
League of Women Voters of the United States
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
MAPS-AMEN (American Muslim Empowerment Network)
Media Alliance
MediaJustice
Milstein Center for Interreligious Dialogue
Motivation Motivates
MoveOn
Multifaith Alliance for Syrian Refugees
Muslim Community Network
NAACP
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF)
National Council of Jewish Women
National Hispanic Media Coalition
National Iranian American Council Action
National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good
Oakland Privacy
Oil Change U.S.
Only Through US
Peace Catalyst International
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA)
Seattle Immigrant Rights Action Group
Service Employees International Union
Shoulder to Shoulder
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas - Justice Team
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
SPLC Action Fund
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
The Sikh Coalition
UltraViolet
Union for Reform Judaism
United Church of Christ
Wallingford Indivisible
Yemeni American Merchants Association
Muslim Advocates is a national civil rights organization working in the courts, in the halls of power and in communities to halt bigotry in its tracks. We ensure that American Muslims have a seat at the table with expert representation so that all Americans may live free from hate and discrimination.
(202) 897-2622LATEST NEWS
Pope Leo Delivers 'Rebuke' of Pete Hegseth With Anti-War Palm Sunday Sermon
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Mar 29, 2026
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Prepares Iran Ground Assault, Expert Warns He's 'Run Out of Options' for Victory
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
Mar 29, 2026
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Blast 'Clueless' New York Times for Dismissive Coverage of Historic No Kings Protests
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
Mar 29, 2026
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular