

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 the D.C. Circuit Court granted the government's request for stay in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, allowing the Biden administration to continue expelling families and children to danger under its inhumane Title 42 policy. Two weeks ago a federal judge ruled Title 42 illegal, issuing an injunction that would have taken effect today. The Biden administration's decision to continue defending the policy in court has put that injunction on pause. The consequences for families and children seeking safety will be deadly.
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court granted the government's request for stay in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, allowing the Biden administration to continue expelling families and children to danger under its inhumane Title 42 policy. Two weeks ago a federal judge ruled Title 42 illegal, issuing an injunction that would have taken effect today. The Biden administration's decision to continue defending the policy in court has put that injunction on pause. The consequences for families and children seeking safety will be deadly.
Members of the #WelcomeWithDignity campaign, which include organizations serving people expelled under Title 42 and litigators in the Huisha-Huisha case, responded to the ruling:
"Once again, the Biden Administration has shown that it is more committed to defending Title 42 than upholding the human rights of asylum-seekers," said Amy Fischer, Americas Advocacy Director at Amnesty International USA. "The continued weaponization of the pandemic to expel people from our border will result in serious harm for the thousands who have been denied protection, including thousands of Haitians who have been brutalized and expelled under the policy in recent weeks. There is simply no way around it - Title 42 must end, and every day the Biden Administration fights to uphold it, they choose xenophobia and racism over protecting human rights."
"The Biden administration should have never appealed this case," said Tami Goodlette, Director of Litigation at Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) and co-counsel in the Huisha-Huisha case. "The lower court concluded Title 42 was illegal and should not be applied to exclude families from seeking asylum in the U.S. But rather than allow families to seek refuge in our country -- which is legal under U.S. law and international law -- the administration chose to further promulgate the Trump administration's racist and xenophobic policies by appealing the case, and then proceeding to expel thousands of Haitians from Del Rio, Texas under Title 42. The Biden administration has lost its way and needs to remember its promises from the election. Migrants deserve better. Our country deserves better."
"The Biden administration's embrace of Title 42 has exposed people seeking safety to untold violence and suffering," said Neela Chakravartula, Managing Attorney at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies and co-counsel in the Huisha-Huisha case. "The administration's decision to defend the policy in court is unconscionable, and a complete betrayal of the president's promise to restore access to asylum. Recent events have laid bare the tragic consequences of Title 42. In less than two weeks, the administration has expelled over 5,000 Haitians to a country plagued with widespread violence and insecurity - a human rights travesty, and no small operational feat. They could have used those resources to safely welcome Haitians seeking refuge. Instead, the president has adopted Trump's racist policy as his own, without regard for the families and children harmed as a result."
"All President Biden needed to do to stop applying Trump's Title 42 to families was not seek a stay or appeal, but they did," said Lindsay Toczylowski, Immigrant Defenders' Co-Founder and Executive Director. "Expelling families with kids and other asylum seekers back to the dangerous countries they have fled with no due process is now a Biden policy, one that the Biden Administration fought hard to keep."
"Abusing an obscure public health rule to shut down our asylum system is Stephen Miller's racist legacy. Every day that the Biden administration allows this policy to remain in place is a day that the government knowingly puts children and families in harm's way. What we witnessed at Del Rio last week is a stark reminder of just how violent this policy is. It's an insult to America's family values that within the past month thousands of Haitians -- including babies and toddlers -- have been expelled back to danger," said Paola Luisi, Director of Families Belong Together. "The Biden administration should live up to its promises and end Title 42 immediately. The world is watching Mr. President: we should be protecting children and families, not expelling them back to danger."
"The Biden Administration's embrace of Title 42 is so absolutely maliciously evil because they've done that political calculus that this obscure policy is just complex enough to never grip the mainstream media's and public's full attention so the government can just continue harming immigrants without being held accountable," said Jonathan Goldman, Executive Director of the Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice. "There is no excuse here. They are complicit in the harm started by Trump. The Biden Administration has not simply continued the policy, which would have been bad enough, but they've actively attempted to keep it alive."
"The Biden Administration's continued defense of Title 42 and its ongoing, devastating effects on human rights at the U.S-Mexico border, which includes over 5,400 Haitians unjustly and cruelly expelled pursuant to these policies within the last 11 days, is outrageous and unconscionable. We will not rest until these practices are eliminated and full reparations have been made to all those who have been affected by these serious human rights crimes," said Camilo Perez-Bustillo, on behalf of the leadership team of Witness at the Border.
"What we know about Title 42 after a year of witnessing its impact firsthand at the border is this: it puts vulnerable migrants in danger, it violates asylum law and it empowers criminal groups to take advantage of those who are expelled," said Dylan Corbett, Executive Director of Hope Border Institute. "Title 42 was the driving force behind the mass deportations of Haitian refugees, one of the largest mass expulsions in US history. The court's decision yesterday was a troubling denial of the reality at the border and the unnecessary suffering of the families we are putting in harm's way."
"Title 42 was a disgrace under the Trump Administration, and now, a disgrace under the Biden Administration." said Karen Tumlin, Founder and Director of Justice Action Center. "The unlawful and immoral policy has never been about protecting public health, but rather, the power to summarily expel asylum seekers back to the very danger they are fleeing. That the Biden Administration would deliberately pursue to uphold the application of Title 42 to children and families is particularly shameful, and immigrant communities and advocates will continue to call on President Biden to end this immoral and unlawful policy once and for all."
"The D.C. Circuit court's decision, which allows the Biden administration to continue to shut the door to people seeking protection and send them back to harm without due process, is beyond disappointing, it is devastating," said Luis Guerra, CLINIC's Strategic Capacity Officer. "We will continue to urge the Biden administration to take bold action at our border by creating safe and dignified pathways for those seeking protection and stop hiding behind and upholding the xenophobic policies of the prior administration. The continued use of Title 42 is shameful, unconscionable and simply inhumane; President Biden has the power and means to end it today. Continuing Title 42 is an absolute affront to our laws and our humanity."
"The Florence Project is dismayed that a court has granted the Biden administration's request to halt a court order that would have protected families seeking protection in the United States," said Chelsea Sachau, an attorney with the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. "People we meet on the Arizona-Sonora border tell us every day that Title 42 puts them in extremely dangerous situations. Asylum seekers tell us that they want to abide by a safe, orderly asylum process. However, despite campaign promises to the contrary, the Biden administration has failed to give them one, even after nine months in office. In fact, they are fighting tooth and nail to defend this indefensible, Trump-era policy and as a result, to prolong the tremendous human suffering it causes. We can welcome asylum seekers safely and with dignity - the Biden administration is choosing not to at every single opportunity."
"The calls come daily, a young journalist in Nicaragua whose life is being threatened because of his political views, a mother and her two young children who watched her brother's murder by cartel and was told they were next, the thousands of people standing on the other side of a horrific wall seeking refuge from climate disasters, violence, and so much more, all turned away because of a public health law dug up by Stephen Miller to forward his racist agenda", said Laurie Benson, Founder of Madres e Hijos. "Every day that the Biden Administration fights to keep this policy in place is a day that they put politics before people, political agendas before humanity."
"The Biden administration's continued embrace of Title 42 expulsions defies domestic and international law, disregards experts' repeated advice on how to handle public health, and puts families and individuals in danger," said Andrew Geibel, Policy Counsel at HIAS. "Its continued use, including its use to deport over 5,000 vulnerable Haitians back to a country that cannot properly integrate them, shocks the conscience. The Biden administration should end this appeal immediately."
"The federal court of appeals ruling allowing the Biden Administration to continue migrant expulsions at the border under Title 42 is a major disappointment," said Joan Rosenhauer, Executive Director of Jesuit Refugee Service USA. "When President Biden campaigned in 2020, he promised he would repair our asylum process and rebuild it from the Trump Administration's attempts to dismantle it and prevent asylum seekers, as well as refugees and other immigrants, from entering the United States. Instead, he is continuing some of the Trump Administration's worst policies. Rather than defending and legitimizing President Trump's legacy, the Biden Administration should be putting more policies in place based on respect for international law and the United States' legacy of welcoming the stranger and providing safety for those fleeing persecution. Title 42 represents the complete opposite."
"While yesterday's decision from the court was disappointing, ultimately nothing is preventing the Biden administration from doing the right thing and choosing to end its use of Title 42 to expel families and adults seeking protection at our border," said Ursela Ojeda Senior Policy Advisor for Migrant Rights and Justice at the Women's Refugee Commission. "Title 42 is an unlawful and xenophobic Trump-era policy that weaponized public health to shut down access to protection at the border. We are outraged by the Biden administration's decision to continue such expulsions which summarily return vulnerable individuals and families to harm and perpetuate suffering and chaos at the border. We call on the administration to finally restore access to asylum, including by reopening ports of entry."
"Just days after witnessing images of the horrific abuses of Black migrants seeking safety at our borders under Title 42, it is disturbing that the Biden administration would continue to maintain and defend this callous policy harming people seeking refuge," said Avideh Moussavian, director of federal advocacy at the National Immigration Law Center. "That last night's ruling came on the same day that DHS issued new enforcement priorities that arbitrarily and unjustly label people as threats to borders security based solely on their attempt to enter the U.S. - often under the most vulnerable and desperate circumstances - speaks to this administration's deeply harmful focus on deterrence. We will continue to fight this policy and others that disproportionately impact Black and LGBTQIA+ asylum seekers and push to hold this administration accountable to its promise to build a 21st century immigration system that centers the dignity of everyone."
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"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.