

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.

Yesterday, in a CNN town hall President Biden was asked about his administration's immigration policy with regards to refugees and people seeking asylum and said: "they should not come." The President of the United States knows seeking asylum is a legal right under U.S. law, and a fundamental human right enshrined in international treaties and conventions-telling people seeking protection otherwise is inexcusable. Members of the #WelcomeWithDignity campaign responded:
Yesterday, in a CNN town hall President Biden was asked about his administration's immigration policy with regards to refugees and people seeking asylum and said: "they should not come." The President of the United States knows seeking asylum is a legal right under U.S. law, and a fundamental human right enshrined in international treaties and conventions-telling people seeking protection otherwise is inexcusable. Members of the #WelcomeWithDignity campaign responded:
"I was in Nogales, Sonora yesterday and met a 24-year-old single mother with her two young children," shared Laurie Benson, Founder of Madres e Hijos. "This mother fled Guerrero when her brother was murdered and the gang told her that she and her children were next. The Biden Administration's insistence that asylum seekers not come and the idea that they should seek asylum in their home countries undermines the very purpose and human right of asylum. People fleeing for their lives do not have the luxury of staying home and maneuvering the asylum process. This Administration must uphold the asylum system and move quickly to right the damage being done by their comments and actions."
"My family and I fled Honduras to seek asylum in the U.S. because the Honduran government would not protect us," said Suny Rodriguez, a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), who crossed the border in 2015 and has since won immigration relief. "President Biden, you need to understand that when you are running for your life, there is no time to wait. Asylum seekers leave everything behind and are exposed to a dangerous journey because our lives depend on it. We deserve to have our plea for protection heard instead of being told not to come."
"Any person who wishes to seek safety in the U.S. has the right to do so," said Denise Bell, Researcher for Refugee & Migrant Rights at Amnesty International USA. "The message coming out from the White House, again and again, is not what Joe Biden promised and we plan to hold him accountable for upholding human rights as we have other Presidents. These statements are simply unacceptable and they send the wrong message not only to communities around the world seeking safety but also those eager to welcome them."
"It is shameful to witness how quickly the theme of the Biden administration has shifted from 'Build Back Better' to 'Do Not Come,'" said Noah Gottschalk, Oxfam America's Global Policy Lead. "After promising to restore humanity to U.S. immigration policy, it is shocking to hear this administration rely on some of the same tired and abhorrent tropes -- and policies -- as President Trump. Seeking asylum is a right and everyone deserves equal protection under the law. It's that simple. The Biden administration must immediately end its casual dehumanization of people who want nothing more than safety for themselves and their families."
"The Biden administration's insistence that asylum seekers 'do not come' - do not exercise their legal right to seek asylum - is yet another tried and failed, abusive Trump-era strategy among the many President Biden has adopted," said Ariana Sawyer, Human Rights Watch, US Border Researcher. "The Biden administration should stop employing rhetoric and policies that undermine the asylum system it swore to defend."
" LGBTQ asylum seekers continue to be abused violently while they wait. We need to remove hurdles so people can be safe, which is what asylum is about," said Craig Scott, Rainbow Beginnings Director.
"For an administration that is trying to put climate change at the heart of its legislative agenda, it is imperative that this administration comprehends the extensive impacts climate change is having on Central American countries, in particular Indigenous peoples and communities of those regions," said Dr. Jessica Hernandez, Climate Justice Policy Strategist at International Mayan League. "The climate change exodus is resulting in the forced displacement of poor and Indigenous peoples, yet the role climate change plays in this forced displacement is ignored by this administration's anti-immigration/refugee discourse."
"People have the right to seek asylum, period. After four years of the Trump administration fostering xenophobia and using every opportunity to dismantle our protection systems, it is deeply disappointing to hear President Biden tell asylum seekers not to come," said Nili Sarit Yossinger, Executive Director of Refugee Congress. "This rhetoric is nothing less than a continuation of the past four years and stands counter to the sentiments of communities all around the country that stand ready to welcome. This is not what was promised. This is not acceptable. And this administration must be held accountable for its words and its actions."
"Everyone deserves a safe place to call home, and denying asylum seekers safety and protection is wrong, "said Meredith Owen, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Church World Service. "If the administration were serious about restoring asylum protections, they would start by upholding our moral and legal obligations to those fleeing violence and persecution, instead of turning them back to the danger they fled. Seeking asylum in the United States is legal, and each person arriving at the U.S. border is a human being who deserves respect, dignity, and safety. We urgently call on the Biden administration to end its attacks on asylum seekers, terminate Title 42 expulsions, and swiftly rebuild the U.S. asylum system so that it is equitable and welcoming for all."
"Asylum is a crucial protection for people fleeing persecution in their home countries," said Eleanor Acer, senior director for refugee protection at Human Rights First. "President Biden should stand up for U.S. values, refugee laws, and treaties, instead of undermining critical human rights protections like the right to seek asylum. The President's statement telling families, children, and adults fleeing for their lives that 'they should not come' is deeply troubling."
"The president's remarks are the latest in a series of dangerous statements by his administration insisting that refugees 'not come' to the U.S. and threatening to return them to danger," said Kate Jastram, Policy and Advocacy Director at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). "People seek asylum at our borders because doing so is their last chance at survival. Suggesting that they instead wait out a lengthy legal process in the very countries they are fleeing is callous in the extreme, and suggests a deep misunderstanding of our laws and treaty obligations. Asylum by definition exists to provide safe haven to those who cannot find protection in their home countries. Denying people their right to seek it violates our laws, flies in the face of the president's campaign promises, and cements the shameful legacy of the Trump administration. Enough."
"While we appreciated the Administration's efforts to increase opportunities for refugee processing in-country and in nearby countries, we are deeply concerned that the Administration fails to understand the urgent need of people to seek safety now, who cannot wait for this process to be set up, and who, if not welcomed here under our laws and in line with our American values, face persecution, torture, and death," said Sara Ramey, Immigration Attorney & Executive Director, Migrant Center for Human Rights.
"Telling asylum seekers they should not seek asylum in the United States is like telling someone whose house is on fire to just wait a bit longer," said Mark Hetfield, President and CEO of HIAS. "Asylum seekers are people who are fleeing violence and looking for safety. You can't dismiss them by saying 'don't come.' People are coming to the U.S. with nothing but fear for their lives, and you cannot simply tell them not to come. That is not leadership. President Biden has said that we need an immigration system that both reflects our values and upholds our laws. Let him use the right language and action and work to put that in place."
"Last night, President Biden reiterated his administration's unconscionable position that families and others seeking safety shouldn't come to the U.S. border," said Katharina Obser, Acting Director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women's Refugee Commission. "People whose lives are at risk cannot simply wait in danger until the President invites them to exercise their legal right to seek safety. Access to asylum is a legal right. Seeking safety is a human right. On Independence Day this year, President Biden stated that our immigration system can both reflect our values and uphold our laws, and asylum is one of those laws we must vehemently defend. Those seeking safety should be welcomed with dignity, not subject to misguided deterrence. WRC is extremely disappointed that the Biden administration continues to parallel the Trump administration's inhumane rhetoric toward immigrants by demanding they not come seek safety."
"Seeking asylum in the United States is legal," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, American Immigration Council, Policy Counsel. "As years of experience have shown, telling people not to come to the United States is cold comfort for those who have no other choice. Rather than trying to deter vulnerable people from fleeing persecution, the Biden administration should be focused on doing what it promised on the campaign trail; restoring access to asylum at the border."
"Seeking Asylum is a human right and guaranteed by U.S. law," said Ronnate Asirwatham, Director Government Relations, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice. "U.S. law guarantees that to seek asylum one must be physically present in the U.S. or arrive at the border. The president saying 'don't come...seek to qualify at a U.S. embassy' is deeply troubling and wrong."
"If only, Mr. President, I could say, 'Don't come,' to the gang attempting to recruit my son. If only I could say, 'Don't come,' to the sun and the rain, which have laid waste to my few crops. If only I could say, 'Don't come,' to my toddler, who cries out in pain from hunger because I have nothing left to feed him. If only I could come to your Embassy, Mr. President. But it's too far and I do not have the bus fare. My needs are too urgent, Mr. President. They cannot wait. So, here I come." Sarah Towle for Witness at the Border.
"It's a fundamental human right, enshrined in US law, to seek asylum, said Jane Bentrott, counsel with Justice Action Center. " The Biden-Harris administration serve neither our values nor our laws by seeking to discourage those who are fleeing rape, murder, and devastating hunger from finding safety."
"People seeking safety deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and that more often than not the current realities at the border fall short of this basic measure," said Charlene D'Cruz, Director of Lawyers for Good Government's Project Corazon. "Telling people 'don't come' is not only insensitive, but ignores the very real root causes of migration, and the U.S.'s involvement therein. People don't leave their homes and their families behind to make the treacherous journey north because they want to, they do it because they have no choice. Seeking asylum is a human right, one that is recognized by international and domestic law, and the Biden Administration must do everything in its power to uphold that."
"We are deeply disappointed by President Biden's message to asylum-seekers yesterday. Families and children escaping danger and persecution must be allowed to pursue their human right of asylum, at any time, and it is imperative that the American President vigorously defends that right," said Santiago Mueckay, Manager of Federal Government Relations at Save the Children. "The Biden administration must remain committed to treating asylum-seeking families with dignity and respect, and uphold its long-stated promise to reshape our asylum and immigration systems."
"Following recent comments by other high-level administration officials, it is deeply troubling to hear President Biden himself appear to abdicate the country's obligations to protect asylum seekers," said Melissa Crow, a senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Immigrant Justice Project. "Seeking protection from violence and persecution is a fundamental human right, and the right to seek asylum is protected under both domestic and international law. To truly turn the page on the horrors of the past administration's policies and the long-flawed immigration system, this administration must embrace these fundamental rights and work to build a system that addresses them."
Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people - no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world's largest grassroots human rights organization.
(212) 807-8400"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, demanding congressional hearings.
"The United States government is looking for ways around that pesky Fourth Amendment," an investigative journalist said of Wednesday reporting by the Associated Press on an internal US Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo claiming that ICE agents can forcibly enter a private residence without a judicial warrant, consent, or an emergency.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
ICE's May 12 memo, part of a whistleblower disclosure obtained by the AP, says that "although the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the US Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose."
The January 7 disclosure was sent to the US Senate by the group Whistleblower Aid, which is "keeping the whistleblowers' identities anonymous even from oversight investigators," according to the document. It notes that despite being addressed to "All ICE Personnel," the seemingly unconstitutional memo "has not been formally distributed to all personnel."
Instead, it "has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action. Those supervisors then show the memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the memo and return it to the supervisor," the disclosure details. "Newly hired ICE agents—many of whom do not have a law enforcement background—are now being directed to rely solely on" an administrative warrant drafted and signed by an ICE official to enter homes and make arrests.
Yeah, why could anyone think that ICE fits the description of the Gestapo?apnews.com/article/ice-...
[image or embed]
— Dan Sohege (@danielsohege.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 4:48 PM
Asked about the May 12 memo, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told the AP that everyone DHS serves with an administrative warrant has already had "full due process and a final order of removal," and the US Supreme Court and Congress have "recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement."
However, as Whistleblower Aid senior vice president and special counsel David Kligerman stressed in a Wednesday statement, "no court has ever found that ICE agents have such legal authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant."
"This administration's secretive policy advocates conduct that the Supreme Court has described as 'the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed'—that is the warrantless physical entry of a home," he noted. "This is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent."
"If ICE believes that this policy is consistent with the law, why not publicize it?" he asked. "Perhaps they've hidden it precisely because it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Policies which impact fundamental constitutional rights, particularly one which the Supreme Court has called the greatest of equals among the Bill of Rights, should be discussed openly with the American people. It cannot be undone by hidden policy memos."
They just make up bullshit, bad-faith legal theories, do what they want until a court stops them, then lather, rinse, and repeat. In the meantime, they get to terrorize people. And nothing will happen to any of those responsible.Our courts are not equipped to deal with this.
[image or embed]
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 5:14 PM
Other lawyers, journalists, and critics responded similarly to the AP's reporting on social media. Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic declared that "the Fourth Amendment literally exists to prevent this."
Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in litigation related to national security, federal employment, and security clearance law, said, "Remember when the Fourth Amendment was still a thing?"
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: "It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!"
"This is the Trump administration trashing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda," he continued, highlighting a footnote that suggests "they won't even rule out authorizing home invasions with no judicial warrant for people not even ordered removed!"
"In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we've been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door," he said. "Turns out they were secretly told they don't need one!"
While Reichlin-Melnick shared photos of a scene in which armed immigration agents used a battering ram to enter a Minneapolis home and arrest a Liberian man, federal agents also recently broke down the door of a residence in neighboring Saint Paul, Minnesota, and arrested ChongLy "Scott" Thao, a US citizen who was later freed.
The AP reporting and responses to the leaked memo came as the Trump administration on Wednesday surged immigration agents to Maine for what it dubbed "Operation Catch of the Day," mirroring the federal deployment to not only Minnesota—where ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a US citizen, in her vehicle earlier this month—but also Illinois and California.
US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened an inquiry into reports of unconstitutional detentions of US citizens by immigration agents in October and on Wednesday demanded answers about the new whistleblower disclosure.
Blumenthal sent lists of questions and requests for records to Lyons and US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as well as Benjamin C. Huffman, director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The senator also wrote to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urging them to call the ICE and DHS leaders to testify before their panels.
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," Blumenthal said in a statement. "It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time."
"In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without a judge giving a green light," he continued. "Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire. I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward and put the rights of their fellow Americans first."
"My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity and obligation to prove that rhetoric is real," the senator added. "They must hold hearings and join me in demanding the Trump administration answer for this lawless policy."
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," said one free press defender.
A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter's electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an "unconstitutional and illegal" raid last week.
US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home—ruled that "the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued."
The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post's initial legal filings against the agent's actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.
Natanson—who describes her work as covering "Trump's reshaping of the government"—welcomed Wednesday's order.
"I need my devices back to do my job," she said on Bluesky.
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigators executed a warrant to search Natanson's Virginia home as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a federal contractor who is accused of illegally possessing classified documents. FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, her smart watch, and her personal and work laptops.
As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted, the criminal complaint for Perez-Lugones’ case contains no allegations that he gave classified documents to any Post reporter, as implied by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
The Post said that the seized devices “contain years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting."
“The government cannot meet its heavy burden to justify this intrusion, and it has ignored narrower, lawful alternatives,” the newspaper added.
As the Post noted Wednesday:
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters’ homes. The law allows such searches, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources...
The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. In 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. That issue was never tested in court because Assange and the government reached a plea deal in 2024.
"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” the Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant.”
Free press defenders cheered Porter's order.
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. "But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records."
"That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security," he added.
The search and seizure of @washingtonpost.com reporter @hannahnatanson.bsky.social's records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety.The judge was right to block it until a full hearing, at which time he should block it permanently.Read our statement: freedom.press/issues/judge...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) January 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM
“This is the first time in US history that the government has searched a reporter’s home in a national security media leak investigation, seizing potentially a vast amount of confidential data and information," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in a statement. "The move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case."
Wednesday's order came two weeks after the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Seth Harp, a journalist wrongly accused of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation’s president and his wife.
Campaigners at Public Citizen say the unchecked flood of corporate money unleashed by the Supreme Court's 2010 decision "paves the way for demagogues like Donald Trump to seize power."
The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen on Wednesday highlighted how President Donald Trump not only has taken advantage of the "torrent of corporate spending" unleashed by the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling 16 years ago, but also is now working to make the fallout from the decision even worse.
“In 2024, the already horrifying amount of money went on steroids, as we witnessed the largest direct corporate spending on elections ever," said the group's co-presidents, Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman.
Corporate-funded dark money groups, nonprofits, and shell companies, which are not required by law to disclose their donors, poured more than $1.9 billion into the 2024 federal election cycle, nearly twice as much as in 2020, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. That amount of spending has climbed dramatically since 2010, with $4.3 billion spent to influence elections since the decision.
The most recent election saw spending power more consolidated into the hands of a few powerful individuals than ever before, with top Trump benefactors including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, investor Timothy Mellon, pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson, and several others all spending more than $100 million apiece to support his candidacy.
The cryptocurrency industry likewise dumped over $245 million into the election cycle and "drove election outcomes and completely reshaped congressional policy debates, as politicians caved to crypto demands rather than face an onslaught of industry spending in the next election," according to Gilbert and Weissman.
Since Trump took office, his administration has further eroded the guardrails, allowing companies to go unchecked in their political spending.
On Wednesday, Public Citizen also unveiled a report showing that "the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), under Trump appointee Chair Paul Atkins, acted in unprecedented ways to erect barriers to shareholders holding companies accountable for corporate political spending," most notably telling companies that they would not face objections if they fail to include political activity on shareholder statements.
Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger said this "ripped away the fig leaf by which the Supreme Court aimed to hide the shame of Citizens United."
The group noted that former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, had justified it by saying that there is "little evidence of abuse that cannot be corrected by shareholders through the procedures of corporate democracy" and that runaway corruption could be headed off by the "prompt disclosure of expenditures."
"All Americans suffer and our democracy withers when corporations and the superrich have more of a say in elections than regular voters do," Gilbert and Weissman said.
"It’s not only that corporations and the superrich are able to block overwhelmingly popular policies—meaningful cuts to drug prices, raising the minimum wage, making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, cracking down on polluters and much more—that would make our country more just, healthier, and more sustainable," they continued. "It’s also that deep frustration with a failed political system paves the way for demagogues like Donald Trump to seize power."
Across party lines, Americans overwhelmingly say that the corporate spending in elections allowed by Citizens United undermines democracy.
An October poll conducted by Issue One found that 79% of Americans said "large independent expenditures by wealthy donors and corporations in elections give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." This included 84% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 79% of independents.
Gilbert and Weissman said, “A constitutional amendment to overturn this terrible decision is 16 years overdue.”