November, 12 2024, 04:10pm EDT

EU Leaders should Uphold Right to Asylum in Europe
10 steps for the EU to ensure sustainable and rights-based asylum systems
BRUSSELS
In light of recent policies aimed at preventing the arrival in the EU of individuals seeking international protection and safety, OVER 40 humanitarian and human rights organizations working to protect the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, call on EU member states and the European Commission to respect EU and international human rights legal frameworks and safeguard the global refugee protection system.
At a summit focused on migration on 17 October 2024, EU leaders doubled down on plans to prevent people from arriving on EU soil, to speed up forced returns and deepen cooperation with third countries to externalize asylum and migration management. This direction was reiterated at the confirmation hearings of the Commissioners-designate for the Mediterranean and for Internal Affairs and Migration on 5 November, where they expressed an openness to different offshoring schemes. Many of these proposals run contrary to current EU legal frameworks, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the recently adopted major overhaul of migration and asylum policy, the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. Before they pursue ill-conceived attempts to shift or offshore their responsibilities to third countries, EU member states and the European Commission should take a close look at their legal obligations and place emphasis on ensuring a successful and human rights compliant implementation of the reform of the asylum and migration policy they have worked on for years.
An increasing move towards containment and evasion of responsibilities
The EU’s migration policy has built on a strategy of containment of refugees and migrants, including efforts to reduce arrivals at the EU’s external borders, to boost returns, and to rely on inequitable outsourcing of responsibility to countries with less capacity to provide effective protection.
The reformed Common European Asylum System (the legal and policy framework developed to guarantee harmonized and uniform standards for people seeking international protection in the EU) maintains and confirms the fundamental right to seek asylum and does not provide for the externalization or ‘offshoring’ of asylum processing (the relocation of the procedure for examining asylum applications to the territory of a third country). However, it introduces an abundance of concepts and measures that risk posing practical barriers to the effective access to asylum, including the fiction of ‘non-entry’, mandatory border procedures, increased use of admissibility procedures, and a range of possible derogations in situations of ‘crisis’ or ‘instrumentalization’.
Political pressure is increasing for so-called ‘innovative strategies’ to either process asylum applications outside EU territory, to refuse asylum applications entirely and shift asylum processing and eventual protection responsibilities to countries outside the EU, or to externalize return procedures to centers outside of the EU, so-called ‘return hubs’. These schemes are not foreseen by the legislative reform under the Pact and they often involve a rehashing of previously discarded or tried-and-failed proposals. A global body of research shows that every time such schemes have been attempted, they have resulted in arbitrary detention, refoulement, avoidable loss of life and other rights violations, both in the returning member state and in the country to which people are transferred, all at a high financial cost for taxpayers.
Ten steps to meet EU human rights obligations and safeguard access to asylum in Europe
The undersigned organizations call on the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, and member states at national level to uphold their obligations under EU and international law and to firmly reject any attempts to weaken protection for asylum seekers at and within EU borders as well as in cooperation with third countries on asylum and migration. This includes opposing proposals for any revisions or watering down of the criteria for safety under the ‘safe third country’ concept in the Asylum Procedures Regulation; abandoning any plans to outsource refugee protection where these raise further barriers to accessing asylum; and rejecting harmful initiatives such as the Italy-Albania arrangement before the human rights consequences become ever more severe.
As an alternative approach, our organizations call on the EU and its member states to invest in sustainable, humane and well-functioning asylum systems, including through the ten steps outlined below.
Address and reverse impediments to the right to seek asylum and access to protection in Europe in the implementation of EU law and the Pact on Migration and Asylum
The right to seek asylum is guaranteed by law, including in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, impediments to seek and obtain international protection in the EU are prevalent in the Pact on Migration and Asylum. EU member states view reduced arrivals and accelerated asylum procedures and returns of rejected asylum seekers as fundamental to securing a ‘stable EU asylum and migration system’. This approach carries very real consequences for people seeking protection and undermines respect for international human rights and refugee law.
We call on the EU and its member states to:
- Focus on compliance with EU law and implementation of the Pact in line with human rights and in close cooperation with civil society. States should take steps to implement the Pact comprehensively, ensuring people with protection needs are identified in a fair and efficient way and given swift access to the asylum procedure. They should take steps to prevent the reform’s worst likely consequences, including widespread detention at borders, lowered asylum standards, and an abuse of ‘crisis’ or ‘instrumentalization’ measures, leading to restricted access to asylum at and within their borders. States should refrain from practices leading to undue restrictions on freedom of movement, such as residence requirements or other measures amounting in practice to a deprivation of liberty. In line with the requirements of the Pact, EU member states need to take steps to ensure sufficient funding and preparedness of their migration, asylum and reception systems for possible increases in arrivals to prevent avoidable crises. The Pact implementation should also provide an opportunity to address longstanding gaps in national asylum systems, including inadequate and insufficient reception capacity, and addressing practices and policies that breach international law, such as the unlawful denial of access to asylum or to a state’s territory, or ongoing cases of border violence or failure to provide assistance at sea. The right to seek asylum should be upheld no matter where people come from or how they entered the territory or came within the jurisdiction or control of EU authorities.
- Refrain from arbitrarily detaining refugees, asylum seekers and migrants and imposing other restrictions on people’s freedom of movement during asylum and return procedures. States must take every step to avoid arbitrary detention at borders. They should generally refrain from detaining asylum seekers and migrants, and at a minimum, they should ensure detention is used as an exception, for the shortest possible time and subject to review. People with specific needs and vulnerabilities – including pregnant people, survivors of torture and of trafficking, people with physical or mental disabilities, serious physical or mental medical conditions, older persons, children, and families with children should not be detained. NGOs and rights monitoring bodies should have unhindered access to border facilities and free quality legal assistance should be provided.
- Enable effective monitoring and accountability for rights violations and pushbacks at European borders, including through addressing the shortcomings raised by civil society concerning the independent border monitoring mechanism to be established by all member states as part of the Pact. To ensure that the mechanism foreseen in the Screening Regulation and the Asylum Procedures Regulation is credible and effective it should be expanded in scope, made truly independent, and coupled with strengthened accountability for violations and sanctions for non-compliance.
- Expand avenues to alternative residence permits for people with protection and other human rights-related needs but not eligible for asylum and ensure the broad range of existing opportunities for legal stay are accessible in practice, including existing permits regulated under national or EU law for humanitarian reasons, medical grounds, for victims of human trafficking, for children, young people and families and stateless people.
Commit to genuine and equitable responsibility sharing in support of a functioning rights-based asylum system
Proposals to offshore and externalize asylum processing have surfaced time and again. They have been consistently rejected as unlawful and unfeasible, including by the European Commission, and have proven to be inhumane in places where such processing has been implemented, including by Australia in Nauru and Manus Island, and in Papua New Guinea. The externalization of asylum or return procedures involves severe human rights risks. Every such initiative that has been put in place has led to human rights violations, including with regards to refoulement, arbitrary detention, denial of the right to asylum and legal aid, lack of identification of vulnerabilities, falling short of the legal and reception standards clearly in place in EU law. These schemes, moreover, have had a ruinous impact on the administration and cost of asylum systems, and on the international refugee protection system, and pose significant risks to the EU’s autonomy and credibility in its external action.
The EU should invest in models to manage forced displacement and irregular movements humanely. Instead of pursuing objectives of shifting responsibilities for refugee protection to other countries, these models need to have at their core the achievement of better protection for those in need and the fulfilment of EU and international human rights obligations.
We call on the EU and its member states to:
- Uphold EU and international law obligations to ensure access to territorial asylum in the EU and to respect the principle of non-refoulement; providing regular pathways to migration can never replace access to territorial asylum. In accordance with the principle of non-refoulementin refugee and human rights law, states may not return people to places where they would be at significant risk of serious human rights violations. Initiatives and efforts to provide alternatives pathways and ‘safe routes’ should never be used as a pretext for justifying the curtailment of the right to seek asylum at the border or imposing admissibility restrictions including impeding or delaying access to territory.
- Ensure adequate Search and Rescue (SAR) capacity and safe and timely disembarkation at the closest port of safety. Rescue at sea is a duty of maritime law. The EU and its member states should end the hinderance and criminalization of SAR operations by civil society organizations and deploy and sustain adequate SAR capacity. Any vessel engaging in the rescue of refugees and migrants in distress should be promptly granted a place of safety where survivors can disembark in a timely manner, prioritizing the safety and welfare of rescued people, and their swift access to asylum procedures. Nobody should be subject to any form of unlawful or arbitrary detention upon disembarkation. Any cooperation with third countries that cannot be considered places of safety should be limited to cases where their intervention is essential to prevent imminent loss of life and be conditional on guarantees that their intervention would not result in the disembarkation taking place in an unsafe port.
- Expand protection and assistance for refugees and migrants along migratory routes through partnerships with third countries without containment objectives. Establishing safe pathways, supporting asylum capacity, and expanding protection for refugees and migrants along migratory routes as part of a route-based approach is important as a way of improving global asylum governance and migration management in a rights-respecting way. However, when investments in asylum capacity in third countries are driven by an underlying objective of stemming and reducing arrivals to European shores, increasing evidence, including research commissioned by the EU, suggests that this creates disincentives for EU’s neighbors to progress on building national asylum systems and expand protection for refugees as they know that this will lead to the EU containing migrants and refugee populations on their territory.
- Recognize the need for significant upscaling of safe and regular pathways in the pursuit of improved management of global mobility. Initiatives to expand safe and regular pathways are commendable and should inspire further efforts. Lessons learned from the Safe Mobility Offices in Latin America demonstrate, however, that to be successful, safe pathways need to be accessible at scale, match the needs of those moving irregularly and reach those most in need. The existence of regular pathways should not be used as a pretext or rationale for disqualifying eligibility to lodge asylum claims for people who enter without authorization. Resettlement through the UN's resettlement system should be strengthened, and the Union Resettlement Framework offers an opportunity for the EU to do so. Moreover, additional safe and regular avenues for protection should be developed, such as the possibility for applying for asylum at embassies and consulates, humanitarian visas and easier access to family reunification. Taking a less restrictive approach to family reunification for refugees is an important alternative pathway to protection in Europe, as experience shows that many refugees and asylum seekers enter via irregular and dangerous routes to seek protection and be reunited with family members. Dignified mobility opportunities such as labor or education-based pathways should also be greatly expanded. Safe and regular pathways should be seen as complementary, rather than a substitute, to the right to asylum.
- Prioritize and conduct human rights impact assessments in advance of collaboration with or support to third countries on asylum and migration and suspend funding when human rights are violated. A human rights approach and timely human rights impact assessment should guide interventions to ensure that asylum and migration cooperation with non-EU countries is conditional on guaranteeing protection for refugees and migrants. The EU must ensure that any funding for border control and migration management includes human rights safeguards, follows rigorous human rights risk assessments, and develops concrete benchmarks to this end. No support should be channeled to entities responsible for human rights abuses. Transparent and independent monitoring and accountability mechanisms should be in place, with public reporting of their findings and outcomes. Where abuses are reported, they should be swiftly investigated, and cooperation should be suspended until the abuses are rectified, safeguards are in place, and steps are taken to ensure that such cooperation does not facilitate further rights violations.
- Strengthen parliamentary and public scrutiny over ongoing agreements. This should include ensuring public availability of monitoring reports and respect for the principle of freedom of information. Evidence of the negative human rights effects of extraterritorial migration cooperation by actors working with refugees, migrants and host communities needs to be acknowledged, and timely and appropriate corrective action taken in program and policy interventions by the EU and member states. Likewise, systematic inclusion of civil society and of those affected by the policy in the monitoring should be ensured. Where this is not possible, consultations and/or access for civil society to share data and evidence with relevant EU institutions should be established.
Signatories
11.11.11
ActionAid International
AGDDS
Asociación Rumiñahui
Bedsteforældre for Asyl
Brot für die Welt
CARE Denmark
Caritas Europa
Centre for Peace Studies
CGIL
Christian Council of Norway
Churches´Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
Ciré
CNCD-11.11.11 (BE)
Danish Refugee Council
Danish United Nations Association / FN-forbundet
Dutch Council for Refugees
Ellebæk Kontaktnetværk / Ellekbaek Contactnetwork
EuroMed Rights
Europe Cares e.V.
European Network on Statelessness
Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy (FCEI)
Finnish Refugee Advice Centre
Finnish Refugee Council
Fundacja Inicjatywa Dom Otwarty
Grandparents for Asylum, Kongelunden
Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
Human Rights Legal Project
Human Rights Watch
International Rescue Committee
Irídia - Centre for the Defence of Human Rights
JRS Europe
Lysfest for Humanisme
Migration Consortium
MISSION LIFELINE International e.V.
Movement for Peace (MPDL)
Novact
r42-SailAndRescue
Red Acoge
Refugees International
Refugees Welcome, Denmark
RESQSHIP
Right to Protection
SOLIDAR
SOS Humanity
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
While Bombing Iran, Trump Sends US Troops Into Ground War on Drugs in Ecuador
"Why is Trump attacking Ecuador?" asked one leftist news outlet. "Same reason he’s in Iran + Venezuela: oil 'secured' by force, sold as fighting a 'dictatorship' and/or 'drugs.'"
Mar 04, 2026
Just over two months after US forces bombed and invaded Venezuela and abducted its alleged drug-trafficking president, the Pentagon on Tuesday announced the launch of a joint campaign with Ecuador to combat "narco-terrorists" in the South American nation.
US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced the operation, which, with the deployment of ground troops, opens a new front in the Trump administration's Operation Southern Spear targeting alleged drug traffickers. The campaign had previously consisted of dozens of airstrikes against boats that the US military claimed were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. More than 150 people have been killed in such bombings.
Right-wing Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa—a close ally of US President Donald Trump whose family shipping business is allegedly linked to cocaine trafficking—hailed the joint operation as "a new phase against narco-terrorism."
However, many Ecuadorian leftists denounced the operation.
"How can our armed forces allow so much?" asked former President Rafael Correa, who expelled the US military from Ecuador and famously said that he would let the US renew a lease on a controversial air base in Manta only if "they let us put a base in Miami."
Last year, Ecuadorian voters rejected a proposal by Noboa to reopen US military bases in the country that were shuttered by Correa's refusal to renew their leases.
Former National Assembly president and Imbabura Province Gov. Gabriela Rivadeneira noted in a television interview that Ecuador has "the only constitution in the world that prohibits foreign military presence" within its borders.
“As the US militarization advances, organized crime and drug trafficking advance further; this country was safer without foreign bases," she contended.
The announcement of the joint campaign also prompted criticism around the world.
"As Trump deploys US troops in Ecuador, there's a real danger that he'll authorize them to summarily shoot rather than capture drug suspects as legally required," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said on social media. "In short, to commit more criminal murders."
US climate campaigner Elise Joshi said on X that "Ecuador's corrupt billionaire president Noboa just gave Trump permission to carry out a military operation in the country as he guts public services, Indigenous rights, and free speech."
"Noboa sold out Ecuador to Trump's war against the [Latin American] people," Joshi added. "Shameful."
My sense is that some in the administration have been itching to put US military boots on the ground somewhere for an operation against “narco-terrorists” and then publicly brag about it and Ecuador was more amenable than say Mexico.
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 7:11 PM
Others questioned the US explanation for the intervention.
"Why is Trump attacking Ecuador?" the leftist magazine In These Times wrote on its X page. "Same reason he’s in Iran + Venezuela: oil 'secured' by force, sold as fighting a 'dictatorship' and/or 'drugs.' Ecuador’s Indigenous organizers forced a pullback in drilling in 2019. Now they face the US military."
Once one of Latin America's most peaceful countries, Ecuador in recent years has become what many observers call a "cocaine superhighway" via which the majority of drugs produced in neighboring Colombia and Peru are shipped to the United States and other international markets. The booming drug trade has sparked a fierce turf war between traffickers that has plunged areas of Ecuador, especially in the coastal province of Guayas, into violence and terror.
The Trump and Noboa administrations have forged closer ties since the US leader's return to office last year, much to the chagrin of many Ecuadorian leftists—who point to the long history of US military invasions and other interventions throughout Latin America, including a CIA-backed coup in Ecuador in 1963.
The Ecuador operation comes amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has killed more than 1,000 people, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Iran is the 10th country bombed on orders from US President Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed "president of peace," who has also attacked Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thanks to Trump's Iran War, US LNG Giants Could See $20 Billion in Monthly Windfall Profits
"Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar," warned one campaigner.
Mar 04, 2026
From declaring an energy emergency and ditching global climate initiatives to abducting the Venezuelan leader to seize control of the country's nationalized oil industry, President Donald Trump has taken various actions to serve his fossil fuel donors since returning to power last year. Now, his and Israel's war on Iran could soon lead to US liquefied natural gas giants pocketing tens of billions in windfall profits.
"The Persian Gulf has some of the world's largest oil and gas producers," Oil Change International research co-director Lorne Stockman explained in a Tuesday blog post, "and a large proportion of that production, around 20% of global petroleum, must pass through a relatively narrow corridor controlled by Iran to reach global markets: the Strait of Hormuz," between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Stockman—whose advocacy group works to expose the costs of fossil fuels and facilitate a just transition to clean energy—noted that "crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) traverse the strait in vast quantities every day. But not since Saturday. With missiles, fighter jets, and drones circling, shipping has ground to a halt, and Iran reportedly threatened to close the strait by force on Monday."
As the conflict in the Persian Gulf continues, fossil fuel companies are preparing for record-breaking profits while billions of people face soaring energy bills and "energy poverty."We’re tired of a world where our energy system fuels war and destroys our climate. oilchange.org/blogs/trumps...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) March 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Based on ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic, Reuters estimated Wednesday that "at least 200 ships, including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers as well as cargo ships, remained at anchor in open waters off the coast of major Gulf producers including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar," and "hundreds of other vessels remained outside Hormuz unable to reach ports."
Stockman warned that "depending on how long the violence and its atrocious human toll continues—Trump said it may take weeks until his undefined objectives are achieved—this will have huge implications for energy markets. Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar."
Since Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu launched "Operation Epic Fury" on Saturday, over 1,000 people had been killed as of Wednesday, according to the Iranian government, and oil prices have surged—highlighting how, as Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen put it earlier this week, "as long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics."
Qatar exports about 20% of the global LNG supply, second only to the United States. All of that LNG goes through the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian drone attack on Monday targeted Qatari LNG facilities, leading state-owned QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on exports. Two unnamed sources told Reuters that QE "will fully shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday," and "it may take at least a month to return to normal production volumes."
The Qatari shutdown is expected to boost the US LNG industry, which exported about 108 million metric tons last year. Already, shares of the two largest LNG producers in the United States, Cheniere and Venture Global, have surged.
"We've got an acute contraction of global LNG supply," Alex Munton, an expert on natural gas markets at consulting firm Rapidan Energy, told CNBC. "The world is now down 20% from where it was, and that leaves the world short."
As CNBC reported Tuesday:
US producers can't ramp LNG production beyond current levels, Munton said. "They're basically running at capacity," he said.
But since their customer contracts don't have fixed destinations, they can reroute LNG to meet demand, he said. The flexible capacity at US LNG producers like Venture and Cheniere plays a crucial role in moments of crisis, the analyst said. It's a unique feature of the US LNG industry, he added.
"The volumes are able to reroute to where the demand is greatest," Munton said. "We saw this in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, Europe was left short, and it was able to call on US LNG and utilize the inherent flexibility of US LNG.
US LNG cannot replace lost supply from Qatar, but buyers who really need the gas and are willing to pay a high enough price will get it, Munton said.
Seb Kennedy, the energy journalist and market analyst behind the newsletter Energy Flux, estimated Wednesday that "American LNG exports could generate up to $4 billion in windfall profits if the force majeure remains in effect for one month. This figure could rise as high as $20 billion per month if the market is deprived of Qatari supply until the summer."
"Over the first four months, US LNG profits could reach more than $33 billion above the pre-Iran average. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108 billion," he continued. "And if, in an extreme scenario, Qatari LNG is shut-in for a full year, the excess profits raining down on US LNG exports could stack up to almost $170 billion—a figure that would represent one of the most concentrated commodity windfalls of the post-2000 era."
"To put that in context, the 12-month Ukraine war windfall accruing to US LNG exporters, from August 2021 through August 2022, is estimated at $84 billion," Kennedy noted. "Iran could, in certain circumstances, eclipse that total in just over six months."
My latest for Energy Flux:💥 War profits, quantified 💥As Middle East regional war upends global gas markets, US LNG exporters stand to pocket a multi-billion-dollar windfallCheck it out 👉 www.energyflux.news/war-profits...
[image or embed]
— Seb Kennedy (@sebkennedy.bsky.social) March 4, 2026 at 11:58 AM
As the US Senate prepared for a vote on a war powers resolution that is not expected to pass but would swiftly halt Trump's assault on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could last at least eight weeks. He also announced that an American submarine fired a torpedo that sank an Iranian naval ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
On Tuesday, Trump had responded to Iran's attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with a post on his Truth Social platform: "Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH—More actions to come."
However, as the New York Times highlighted Wednesday, "shipping company officials and analysts are skeptical" of Trump's promised fixes, and "some industry executives also worried how quickly these could get up and running."
For example, Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote to clients on Tuesday that "we think the insurance proposal is likely in a concepts-of-a-plan stage," and she questioned whether there are enough US naval assets in the region to actually provide escorts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Talarico Win Shows Democrats Can't 'Write Off Latinos Who Voted for Trump': Ex-Sanders Strategist
Democratic operative Chuck Rocha described Talarico as "a special candidate" who "ran the right kind of race at the right time."
Mar 04, 2026
James Talarico's victory in the Democratic US Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday shows why it would be a mistake to think Latino voters who jumped ship to support President Donald Trump in 2024 are a lost cause, according to Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha.
Rocha, who worked on Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign and who is a senior adviser for Talarico's campaign, told the Wall Street Journal that the Democratic Senate hopeful won over Latino support in Texas by focusing on a populist economic message first and foremost, such as when he accused US billionaires of "stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created."
"Latinos are an aspirational people, and they want to aspire," said Rocha. "And they are also religious people, and they're... for economic populism."
The Journal noted that Talarico easily bested his rival for the nomination, US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), by roughly 27 percentage points in Texas counties whose populations are 60% or more Latino, including counties in the southern part of the state that were longtime Democratic strongholds that swung to Trump in 2024.
The lesson of the election for Democrats, Rocha told the Journal, is "don’t write off Latinos that voted for Donald Trump."
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Rocha elaborated on how Talarico and his campaign secured the nomination, calling the Texas Democrat "a special candidate" who "ran the right kind of race at the right time."
The facts about how @TeamTalaricoHQ won last night pic.twitter.com/1IUd9VpPUh
— Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) March 4, 2026
Beyond that, Rocha said, Talarico and his staff were simply relentless campaigners willing to seek votes wherever they could find them.
"He won because he showed up in communities," Rocha said. "He ran advertising in those communities. He had an amazing field team of 28,000 volunteers, over 600 community events in just eight weeks. They sent over 4 million peer-to-peer texts."
Rocha said that it was too soon to say whether Talarico's message meant that Latino voters were returning to Democrats more broadly, but added, "They will move back for James Talarico if you show up and give them a hopeful message."
Rocha's enthusiasm for Talarico was echoed by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"James Talarico is the future of the Democratic Party," Casar declared in a social media post. "He unites working people of all kinds to take on the billionaires who are making life unaffordable. He’s going to show Texas Republicans how powerful working people are when we stand together. On to victory in November."
Mark McKinnon, a one-time Texas political operative who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, said in an interview with Politico that Talarico's victory would be an unwelcome development for the Texas GOP, which will have to work harder to defeat him than other prospective Democratic nominees.
"A perfect storm is lining up for Texas Democrats," McKinnon said. "They have a nominee who can appeal to moderates and soft Republicans. Talarico could be Moses who leads the Lone Star Democrats out of the desert they’ve been in for 35 years."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


