

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.
Kevin Short, Physicians for Human Rights, media@phr.org
A new investigation by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) documents the severe health and human rights tolls of the Title 42 border expulsion order, under which the United States government has expelled children and adults seeking refuge at the U.S. border nearly one million times since March 2020.
"Neither Safety nor Health: How Title 42 Expulsions Harm Health and Violate Rights" exposes some of the consequences of the expulsion policy, including family separations, abusive actions by U.S. and Mexico government officials, and acute medical and psychological impacts on asylum-seeking children and adults. Based on in-depth interviews conducted in Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, Mexico in May 2021 with 28 expelled asylum seekers and six health professionals who provide medical care to migrants, the report underscores the dire consequences of the Title 42 ban and the urgency for the Biden administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to revoke the order.
Despite the order being implemented under the guise of a COVID-19 pandemic safety measure, public health experts have long objected to Title 42 expulsions and called out the lack of epidemiological evidence to justify banning only asylum seekers to the United States while keeping the borders largely open to other travelers. Although the ban was conceived by Trump administration officials, the Biden administration continues to expel hundreds of thousands of families and adults to countries where they face severe harm and persecution, violating their rights, threatening already traumatized people, and failing to protect public health.
In a first-of-its-kind approach to documenting the psychological effects of these expulsions and family separations, PHR researchers used validated Spanish-language screening tools to screen participants for mental health symptoms, including the PCL-5 Civilian scale for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL25) for anxiety and depression symptoms. Of the 26 participants who were administered validated screening tools, 96 percent screened positive for at least two disorders, and 88 percent screened positive for PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Parents interviewed by PHR reported that the family separations produced by Title 42 expulsions caused severe psychological harms to their children, resulting in excessive crying, disturbed sleep, and developmental setbacks such as resuming bed wetting. Eleven interviewees stated that their children were not eating and had lost significant weight due to the trauma of family separation.
The PHR report also sheds new light on abusive and dangerous actions by U.S. officials during the expulsion process. All 28 asylum seekers interviewed described gratuitously cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of the U.S. government, including physical and verbal abuse by border agents, inhumane detention conditions, active deception about their expulsion and the whereabouts of their family members, and unsafe returns that put people at great risk of harm. Of those interviewed by PHR, 11 people were forcibly separated from family members by U.S. officials and eight people were separated from family members they traveled with who were not their biological children, but for whom they were the primary guardian (such as younger minor siblings or nieces and nephews). Asylum seekers reported that U.S. border officials also deceived and actively provided false information to them, such as telling people they were being reunited with family members while actually separating them.
These accounts reflect how the Title 42 order both directly and indirectly separated families without considering the best interests of the child during the separation process, increasing the trauma and vulnerability of family members. Family support is a critical resilience factor for children and separations have been associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes.
After being expelled across the U.S.-Mexico border, asylum seekers interviewed by PHR reported that they had been assaulted, kidnapped, extorted, and subjected to physical and sexual violence in Mexico. Interviewees reported that they did not have access to state protection from Mexican authorities, and several were even robbed or extorted by Mexican authorities after they were expelled from the United States.
"U.S. policy is ensnaring people in a deadly dilemma, where they are unsafe in their home country, unsafe in Mexico, and yet unable to seek safety at the U.S. border," said Michele Heisler, MD, MPA, report co-author, medical director at PHR, and professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan. "From a public health perspective, the Title 42 order was junk science from the moment it began. Rather than protect anyone's health, these expulsions accelerate a health and human rights emergency in Mexican border cities.
"Since the beginning of the pandemic and with the rise of new COVID-19 variants, the best way to protect public health remains vaccines, masking, and social distancing - not a targeted and unscientific ban on asylum seekers," said Dr. Heisler.
A letter from public health experts, including Dr. Heisler, to the Biden administration in July 2021 reiterated that the latest scientific knowledge regarding transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19 did not support expulsion as a public health measure, and that the order undermined trust in the CDC itself as a scientific body.
"The United States has the means and the know-how to process asylum seekers safely at the border and to welcome them with dignity, but every day the Biden administration instead chooses to condemn people to kidnappings, extortion, and violence in northern Mexico," said Cynthia Pompa, report co-author and asylum program officer at PHR. "Asylum seekers told us searing accounts of being separated from family members, brutalized by U.S. officials, and abused by Mexican authorities. Title 42 expulsions are nothing short of a human rights catastrophe and, by continuing them, the Biden administration is responsible for devastating harms to children and adults who are fleeing persecution."
"U.S. officials actively deceived people about their expulsion and family separation, while denying them access to basic information, such as where they were being transported, where their family members were, and what was happening to them," said Kathryn Hampton, report co-author and senior asylum officer at PHR. "Title 42 expulsions are a flagrant violation of people's rights under both the U.S. Constitution and multiple international treaties. With each passing day, the Biden administration is trampling on its professed commitment to science-based policymaking and a humane immigration system. The administration must stop playing politics and start saving lives: Revoke the Title 42 order now."
"Our findings make it clear that the Biden administration's recent announcement that it will expedite removal of some asylum-seeking families from the United States without a hearing in front of a judge will only increase the vulnerability and risks of harm for children and adults. This change will result in wrongful removals and undermines efforts to create a humane, safe, rights-respecting asylum system," said Hampton.
PHR is calling on the Biden administration and the CDC to immediately nullify the Title 42 expulsion order and restore access to asylum at the border by working with public health experts to ensure that border COVID-19 screening guidelines are implemented in line with scientific evidence and U.S. asylum laws and treaties. The PHR report provides detailed recommendations for the CDC, Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Congress, and government of Mexico to safeguard the health and human rights of people who seek asylum in the United States.
Read the full report here.
PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical duties, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human rights violations and work to stop them. PHR mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and promotes the right to health for all.
"If Trump is using this justification to use military force on any individuals he chooses... what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?"
A Democratic senator is raising concerns about President Donald Trump potentially relying on the same rationale he's used to justify military strikes on purported drug trafficking vessels to kill American citizens on US soil.
In an interview with the Intercept, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) argued that Trump's boat strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean have been flatly illegal under both domestic and international law.
Diving into specifics, Duckworth explained that the administration has been justifying its boat-bombing spree by arbitrarily declaring suspected drug traffickers as being part of "designated terrorist organizations," which the senator noted was "not grounded in US statute nor international law, but in solely what Trump says."
Many other legal experts have called the administration's strikes illegal, with some going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Duckworth, a military veteran, also said it was not a stretch to imagine Trump placing terrorist designations on US citizens as well, which would open up the opportunity to carry out lethal strikes against them.
"If Trump is using this justification to use military force on any individuals he chooses—without verified evidence or legal authorization—what’s stopping him from designating anyone within our own borders in a similar fashion and conducting lethal, militarized attacks against them?" Duckworth asked. "This illegal and dangerous misuse of lethal force should worry all Americans, and it can’t be accepted as normal."
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported last week that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently wrote a memo that directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
The memo expanded upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by Trump in late September that demanded a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The Intercept revealed that it reached out to the White House, the DOJ, and the US Department of Defense and asked whether the tactics used on purported Caribbean drug traffickers could be deployed on the US citizens that wind up on Bondi's list of extremists. All three entities, reported the Intercept, "have, for more than a month, failed to answer this question."
The DOJ, for instance, responded the Intercept's question about using lethal force against US citizens by saying that "political violence has no place in this country, and this Department of Justice will investigate, identify, and root out any individual or violent extremist group attempting to commit or promote this heinous activity."
Rebecca Ingber, a former State Department lawyer and current professor at Cardozo Law School, told the Intercept that the administration's designation of alleged cartel members as terrorists shows that there appears to be little limit to its conception of the president's power to deploy deadly force at will.
“This is one of the many reasons it is so important that Congress push back on the president’s claim that he can simply label transporting drugs an armed attack on the United States and then claim the authority to summarily execute people on that basis," Ingber explained.
The Intercept noted that the US government "has been killing people—including American citizens, on occasion—around the world with drone strikes" for the past two-and-a-half decades, although the strikes on purported drug boats represent a significant expansion of the use of deadly force.
Nicholas Slayton, contributing editor at Task and Purpose, pointed the finger at former President Barack Obama for pushing the boundaries of drone warfare during his eight years in office.
"Really sucks that Obama administration set a legal precedent for assassinating Americans," he commented on Bluesky.
"The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel."
Jewish Voice for Peace Action on Friday led a coalition of groups demanding that the Democratic Party stop providing arms to the Israeli government.
Speaking outside the Democratic National Committee’s Winter Meeting in Los Angeles, Jewish Voice for Peace Action (JVP Action) held a press conference calling on Democrats to oppose all future weapons shipments to Israel, whose years-long assault on Gaza has, according to one estimate, killed more than 100,000 Palestinian people.
While carrying banners that read, "Stop Arming Israel," speakers at the press conference also called on Democrats to reject money from the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), which has consistently funded primary challenges against left-wing critics of Israel.
JVP Action was joined at the press conference by representatives from Health Care 4 US (HC4US), Progressive Democrats of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action (CAIR Action), and the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) Board of Directors.
Estee Chandler, founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, warned Democrats at the press conference that they risked falling out of touch with public opinion if they continued to support giving weapons to Israel.
"The polls are clear,” Chandler said. "The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel, and the Democratic Party refusing to heed that call will continue to come at their own peril."
The press conference came a day after the progressive advocacy group RootsAction and journalist Christopher D. Cook released an "autopsy" report of the Democratic Party's crushing 2024 losses, finding that the party's support for Israel's assault on Gaza contributed to last year's election results.
Chandler also called on Democrats to get behind the Block the Bombs Act, which currently has 58 sponsors, and which she said "would block the transfer of the worst offensive weapons from being sent to Israel, including bombs, tank rounds, and artillery shells that are US-supplied and have been involved in the mass killing of Palestinian civilians and the grossest violations of international law in Gaza."
Although there has technically been a ceasefire in place in Gaza since October, Israeli forces have continued to conduct deadly military operations in the enclave that have killed hundreds of civilians, including dozens of children.
Ricardo Pires, a spokesperson for the United Nations Children’s Fund, said last month that the number of deaths in Gaza in recent weeks has been "staggering" given that they've happened "during an agreed ceasefire."
"She can't even be effective as a shill," said one critic of the ex-senator's lobbying.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those celebrating after the Chandler, Arizona City Council on Thursday night unanimously rejected an artificial intelligence data center project promoted by former US Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
"Good!" Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) simply said on social media Friday.
The defeat of the proposed $2.5 billion project comes as hundreds of advocacy groups and progressive leaders, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are urging opponents of energy-sucking AI data centers across the United States to keep pressuring local, state, and federal leaders over climate, economic, environmental, and water concerns.
In Chandler, "the nearly 43,000-square-foot data center on the corner of Price and Dobson roads would have been the 11th data center in the Price Road Corridor, an area known for employers like Intel and Wells Fargo," the Arizona Republic reported.
The newspaper noted that around 300 people attended Thursday's meeting—many holding signs protesting the project—and city spokesperson Matthew Burdick said that the government received 256 comments opposing the data center.
Although Sinema skipped the debate on Thursday, the ex-senator—who frequently thwarted Democratic priorities on Capitol Hill and ultimately ditched the party before leaving office—previously attended a planning and zoning commission meeting in Chandler to push for the project. That stunt earned her the title of "cartoon villain."
Sinema critics again took aim at her after the 7-0 vote, saying that "she can't even be effective as a shill" and "Sinema went all in to lobby for a data center in Chandler, Arizona and the council told her to get rekt."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball declared: "Kyrsten Sinema data center L. Love to see it."
Politico noted Friday that "several other Arizona cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have written zoning rules for data centers or placed new requirements on the facilities. Local officials in cities in Oregon, Missouri, Virginia, Arizona, and Indiana have also rejected planned data centers."
Janos Marton, chief advocacy officer at Dream.Org, said: "Another big win in Arizona, following Tucson's rejection of a data center. When communities are organized they can fight back and win. Don't accept data centers that hide their impacts behind NDAs, drive up energy prices, and bring pollution to local neighborhoods."
When Sinema lobbied for the Chandler data center in October, she cited President Donald Trump's push for such projects.
"The AI Action Plan, set out by the Trump administration, says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country," she said at the time. "So federal preemption is coming. Chandler right now has the opportunity to determine how and when these new, innovative AI data centers will be built."
Trump on Thursday signed an executive order (EO) intended to block states from enforcing their own AI regulations.
"I understand the president has issued an EO. I think that is yet to play itself out," Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke reportedly said after the city vote. "Really, this is a land use question, not [about] policies related to data centers."