SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us citizenship and immigration services
'Absurd and Cruel': Critics Decry Trump Rule Change for Green Card Applicants
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
May 23, 2026
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Musk Rob the Poorest Children to Pay for War Crimes
These are the human costs of the American people electing politicians whose military death cult keeps getting more Pentagon funding from Congress, displacing programs sustaining life.
May 23, 2026
A skeptical friend reading The New York Times asked me why columnist Nicholas Kristof keeps writing columns about recurring poverty in less developed countries. My answer is simple. Because he keeps going to these remote areas populated by brutalized human beings living in dire impoverishment and sickness.
At no small risk to himself (Kristof caught malaria in the Congo), he goes to where the most deprived people on Earth live for his stories. He does what few columnists are willing or able to do by exposing how children, the elderly, and entire families are dying under the most unimaginable cruelty.
I suspect that what keeps Kristof going is that he sees how inexpensively many of these mortalities and morbidities can and have been prevented. For example, a $4 vaccine can prevent cervical cancer, which kills over 900 women worldwide every day!
Knowing all this has led to his sharp denunciation of Tyrant Donald Trump and DOGE Director Felon Elon Musk’s immediate and illegal closure of the Agency for International Development (USAID). Soon after the failed gambling czar re-disgraced the White House on January 20, 2025, the world heard Musk’s sadistic boast, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the woodchipper.”
Nicholas Kristof, it is time to break the unspoken reluctance of The New York Times editorial page—replete with specific editorial and op-ed denunciations of bully Trump’s many crimes—and raise the cry of IMPEACHMENT.
Why on Earth would these callous corporatists criminally destroy an agency with an average budget of $23 billion a year (about 10 days of the Trump-bloated Pentagon war budget) to save the lives of millions of babies, children, women, and men? Especially when much of this spending goes right back to US contractors who ship the food, medicines, drinking water, wheelchairs, medical devices, and other materials to poverty-stricken nations.
The Trump-Musk cabal sadistically exuded glee, declaring they were saving taxpayer money. The money spent by USAID is a small price to pay for preventing the atrocities they visited on those most in need of humanitarian assistance on the planet. Given the reputation of the US’ invasive military empire all over Asia, Africa, and South America, war criminal Trump failed to understand the benefit that such aid—often called “soft power”—does to improve Uncle Sam’s tarnished reputation.
In his latest column, dated May 10, 2026, and titled “The Children America Abandoned,” Kristof makes the following points:
“A year after some of the world’s richest men cut aid for the world’s poorest children, …” Trump and Musk retained “some lifesaving programs, particularly for HIV/AIDS…” However, Trump’s “71% cut in humanitarian aid from 2024 to 2025…” led to the loss of “750,000 lives worldwide” in Trump’s first year, citing a study by a Boston University researcher. The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet projected that at present official development assistance (ODA) defunding rates, 9.4 million lives will be lost worldwide, including 2.5 million among children 5 years and younger, by 2030.
While these enormous preventable death numbers may shock most Americans, it is because USAID over decades has not been encouraged by its cautious superiors in the White House to toot its own horn for fear of enraging right-wing ideologues in Congress who have long wanted foreign aid abolished.
“A few doses of a $3 malaria vaccine can now save a Congolese child’s life,” Kristof writes. Tuberculosis is a major contagious killer in Africa, mostly among children and pregnant women. A series of regular TB drugs, consistently administered by clinics, can sharply reduce this epidemic. Again, very cost-effective.
What these clenched-jawed Trumpty Muskites ignore is that catching precursors of pandemics in African or Asian countries can prevent deadly viruses and bacteria from migrating to the United States. Without funds and diligent monitoring, the current Ebola emergency in the Congo is spreading.
These are the human costs of the American people electing politicians whose military death cult keeps getting more Pentagon funding from Congress, displacing programs sustaining life. Trump’s war crimes are used to seek an increase of a staggering 50% budget increase or $500 billion for the Pentagon. Trump wants to use deficit financing to further bloat the Pentagon budget so he can keep cutting taxes for the super rich, himself, and giant corporations for the next fiscal year.
In one of his previous columns, Kristof shows how the swollen, corrupt military spending on contractors can be better used in our domestic economy, repairing public services and building infrastructure. The last president to make this comparison was former five-star general President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 in an address before the American Society of Newspaper Editors (See the address.) Two recent books: Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex by William D. Hartung and The Spoils of War: Power, Profit, and the American War Machine by Andrew Cockburn unmask the devastating impact of wasteful military spending on human needs.
The Democratic Party refuses to make the runaway military budget, now overconsuming half of the entire federal operating budget, a political campaign issue. Worse, they eagerly join the congressional Republicans in the yearly hoopla for ever more megadollars for the Pentagon. Serious appropriations hearings in the House and Senate are a long-ago memory for this untouchable depravity of blank checks, stealing from the many unmet necessities of the American people and their children here at home, which also cost many American lives.
So, Kristof, who has written devastating critiques of Trump, ends his column with “The truth is ugly: The world’s richest men are crushing the world’s poorest children.”
Nicholas Kristof, it is time to break the unspoken reluctance of The New York Times editorial page—replete with specific editorial and op-ed denunciations of bully Trump’s many crimes—and raise the cry of IMPEACHMENT or, in the vernacular that Tyrant Trump very often uses, say “YOU’RE FIRED!” (See, the Impeachment Symposium of April 8, 2026).
As I have said many times, with Trump, IT IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE, MUCH WORSE. In addition to manipulating districts, he is openly intending worse takeovers of the November elections, having said in January, “We shouldn’t even have an election” in November. What are our politicians and the mainstream media waiting for? It is time for them to summon the courage of their declared convictions!
P.S. Kristof’s most recent feature exposes the sexual violence by Israeli soldiers against kidnapped Palestinian men, women, and children, including training dogs to rape shackled prisoners (See The New York Times, May 17, 2026, “The Silence That Meets The Rape of Palestinians”).
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Moral Insanity of Trump's Endless Warmongering
Politically, war and militarism are taken utterly for granted, but the “creation of peace” is controversial. Why?
May 23, 2026
“In the 21st century, the United States has spent almost $8 trillion on foreign wars, with nearly 5 million lives lost.”
And we’re only a quarter of the way into the century. Are we aiming for 20 million dead civilians by 2100? Here’s a recent Truth Social post from the current president: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”
There’s a moral insanity to these words, hiding behind a ho-hum collective shrug. People either brush it off as “just talk” or, even more ominously, nod their heads and smile in agreement. Yeah, he’s keeping us safe. War, the planet’s great, lethal abstraction, is necessary. It keeps us safe. It eliminates evil. Yada, yada. No matter it does none of those things—indeed, does just the opposite. Public acceptance of the inevitability and necessity of war has been expanding throughout my lifetime.
The quote at the top of the column, tossing out a few incomprehensible statistics, is one of the findings included in the 2025 bill presented before Congress to establish a Department of Peacebuilding, introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). It’s the most recent in a long, long line of bills and proposals over the years, meant to establish peace—whatever that is—as a matter of national significance and responsibility. No such bill has ever been passed; all have remained marginal... and no doubt cynically dismissed.
Probably the only way to gain political traction is to focus on peace not as political or ideological, but as structurally logical. Peacebuilding works!
Politically, war and militarism, as well as armed policing and the prison-industrial complex—all of which are funded annually by multitrillions of dollars of the federal and other public budgets—are taken utterly for granted. But the “creation of peace” is controversial. Why?
Of all the questions buzzing around in my mind, this is perhaps the largest—and most predatory. Here are some more findings from the 2025 Department of Peacebuilding bill:
- “According to the Centre for Global Research, the United States has been at war for more than 90% of its existence. Many of our citizens today have never known a peaceful year in their lifetimes..."
- “Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Native Americans aged 10 to 34. Approximately 17 veterans a day commit suicide nationwide. About 12 young people in the United States die from homicides each day..."
- “Each day, an average of 132 people died from gun violence—one death every 11 minutes. In 2024, there were more than 500 mass shootings... Young people go to school wondering where to hide when a shooter enters their classroom."
And on and on. The bill also notes:
The preamble of the Earth Charter provides, "To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.”
Which country would you rather live in? That country or this one, as summed up by “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth:
America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course classified effects. All on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don't waste time or lives.
Can peacebuilding even be acknowledged as legitimate in such a culture? The ever-present necessity of war not only unites the nation state—it’s us vs. the bad guys, the commies, the terrorists, or whoever—it provides moral protection for those who have already committed or supported murder of “the other,” including the murder of children. Including genocide. The vet suicide rate is an example of what happens when this moral protection vanishes.
What a complex reality faced by those of us who believe—with all our hearts—in the recognition and establishment of peacebuilding at the national level. Probably the only way to gain political traction is to focus on peace not as political or ideological, but as structurally logical. Peacebuilding works! Restorative Justice is certainly one example: creating a structure of healing for people harmed by a crime, rather than simply hunting down and punishing the “offender,” changing nothing.
Of course, another problem faced by peacebuilders is that the current violence-based, non-functional system is lucrative for investors—in weaponry, prisons, etc. How dare those peaceniks challenge this!
All we can do is refuse to give up—and refuse to look at “peace” as an us-vs.-them problem, easy (and tempting) as that is to do. The powerful will, and should, also benefit from peacebuilding, though not perhaps in a way they can understand. Power comes with connection, not domination.
Note: I’ll continue to address this issue and, indeed, continue writing my column, even though this is the last one being syndicated by the Chicago Tribune, after 27 years.
Keep ReadingShow Less
World Cup or Global Spectacle of Repression?
The US and FIFA have turned the world’s greatest football celebration into a human rights crisis.
May 23, 2026
The 2026 World Cup was supposed to be a symbol of global unity, cultural diversity, and a shared celebration among nations; an event that would place football beyond politics, borders, and ideology. Yet the closer we move toward the start of the tournament, another image is taking shape: one that speaks not of football’s excitement, but of the heavy shadow of securitization, anti-immigrant hostility, discrimination, and a crisis of human rights legitimacy. Human Rights Watch’s recent warning that the 2026 World Cup could turn into a “human rights disaster” is not merely a publicity-driven statement; it is a sign of a deep rupture between the West’s moral claims and the political reality of the United States today.
The 2026 World Cup is set to be jointly hosted by the US, Canada, and Mexico; three countries presented in FIFA’s official publicity as symbols of “multiculturalism,” “freedom,” and “diversity.” In practice, however, the tournament will be held in an environment shaped by hard-line immigration policies, the securitized atmosphere following President Donald Trump’s return, the rise of far-right currents, and intensifying cultural wars—an environment that displays a very different face of these countries.
The remarks by Minky Worden, director of Global Initiatives at Human Rights Watch, are highly significant because she points to an issue that FIFA and the US are trying to sidestep: the possible role of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the security environment of the World Cup. The central concern is not merely the presence of immigration officers in stadiums; the issue is that the World Cup may become a platform for normalizing harsh immigration policies and securitized control. In a country where images of migrant detentions, mass deportations, family separations, and violent treatment of asylum-seekers have repeatedly made headlines in recent years, it is only natural that many human rights activists would be concerned about the psychological and social safety of migrants, Muslims, Latinos, and even foreign fans.
The reality is that the US today is no longer able to preserve the uncontested image of the “land of freedom” as it did in the 1990s, or even during the Obama era. Trump’s return, the intensification of domestic polarization, and the radicalization of the political atmosphere have pushed the United States into a stage in which “security” has prevailed over “freedom” more than ever before. The 2026 World Cup will be held precisely in such an atmosphere: one in which football is not merely a sporting event, but part of the US' internal political and identity struggle.
Perhaps the greatest danger for US and FIFA is precisely this: that the world may remember the 2026 World Cup not for its goals and matches, but for images of migrant detentions, a police-state atmosphere, culture wars, and human rights contradictions.
One of the most important dimensions of the crisis is the issue of the “culture war,” a concept Worden also references. Today in the US, issues such as migrants’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, race, religion, and cultural identity have become the main battlefield of political confrontation. Under such conditions, the World Cup can no longer claim that “sport is separate from politics.” On the contrary, the tournament is likely to become a stage for displaying these very ideological fractures.
This issue is especially significant when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. The fact that only the city of Atlanta has referred in its official programs to support for LGBTQ+ rights shows that even among the US host cities, there is no clear consensus on human rights standards. This comes as FIFA has repeatedly claimed in recent years that it has made human rights one of its strategic principles. The glaring contradiction lies here: An institution that took positions on minority rights in Qatar is now acting with greater caution and silence in the face of potential human rights crises in the US.
At this point, the main issue is no longer only the US; it is the crisis of FIFA’s own legitimacy. FIFA has tried for years to present itself as an institution above politics, but the reality is that global football has long since become part of the structure of power and geopolitical interests. The granting of the so-called “peace prize” to Trump, at a time when his immigration and security policies face widespread global criticism, became so controversial precisely for this reason. Critics believe FIFA is less concerned with human rights than with preserving its relations with the political and economic powers of the host countries.
This crisis is not merely a moral issue; it is directly tied to the future credibility of international institutions. If FIFA remains silent in the face of discriminatory policies, a securitized environment, and civil restrictions, how can it continue to claim that it defends universal values? Are human rights standards applied only to non-Western countries? And if human rights violations in the US are ignored, does the very concept of the “universality” of human rights not fall into crisis?
The US itself, meanwhile, faces a profound contradiction. For decades, Washington has used human rights as a tool for producing global legitimacy and has pressured many of its rivals through this very discourse. But now, the same country that accused others of violating freedoms is facing warnings from human rights organizations about its treatment of migrants, minorities, and its internal security environment. This development is a sign of the erosion of American soft power—power that was once Washington’s most important instrument of global influence.
From this perspective, the 2026 World Cup is not merely a sporting event; it is a test of the gap between the US' official narrative and its domestic reality. If the tournament is accompanied by an intensely securitized atmosphere, the control of migrants, discriminatory treatment, or the suppression of protests, the image of the US that forms in the minds of millions of global viewers will be very different from the traditional narrative of a “free American society.” In the age of social media, even one violent encounter around the stadiums could turn into a global crisis for the credibility of both the US and FIFA.
In the meantime, the more important point is that football is no longer merely a tool of entertainment as it once was. Today, the World Cup is part of the competition of narratives and the war of images. Countries try to use this event to display their stability, legitimacy, and cultural appeal. But if the US cannot manage the contradiction between its human rights slogans and the reality of its domestic politics, the 2026 World Cup may become a symbol of crisis in the very values the West has claimed for decades to defend.
Perhaps the greatest danger for US and FIFA is precisely this: that the world may remember the 2026 World Cup not for its goals and matches, but for images of migrant detentions, a police-state atmosphere, culture wars, and human rights contradictions. In that case, this tournament will not merely be a failed sporting event; it will become a symbol of an era in which even the greatest celebration of world football could not conceal the rupture between power, politics, and human rights.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular