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
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular