Americans

For the first time in more than half a century, immigrants leaving the U.S. outnumber those arriving, a phenomenon that may signal President Trump’s historic mass deportation efforts are having the intended effect.

An analysis of census data released by Pew Research Center on Thursday noted that between January and June, the United States’ foreign-born population had declined by more than a million people.

Millions of people arrived at the border between 2021 and 2023 seeking refuge in America after the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, which ravaged many of their home countries. In 2023, California was home to 11.3 million immigrants, roughly 28.4% of the national total, according to Pew.

In January, 53.3 million immigrants lived in the U.S., the highest number recorded, but in the months that followed, those who left or were deported surpassed those arriving — the first drop since the 1960s. As of June, the number living in the U.S. had dropped to 51.9 million. Pew did not calculate how many immigrants are undocumented.

Trump and his supporters have applauded the exodus, with the president declaring “Promises Made. Promises Kept,” in a social media post this month.

“Seven months into his second term, it’s clear that the president has done what he said he’d do by reestablishing law and order at our southern border and by removing violent illegal immigrants from our nation,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a USA Today column on Thursday. “Both actions were necessary for Americans’ peace and prosperity.”

But some experts caution that such declines will have negative economic effects on the United States if they continue, resulting in labor shortages as America’s birth rate continues to drop.

“Looking ahead in the future, we’re going to have to rely on immigrant workers to fulfill a lot of the jobs in this country,” said Victor Narro, project director at UCLA Labor Center. “Like it or not, the demographics are going to be changing in this country. It’s already changing, but it’s going to be more pronounced in the future, especially with the decline in native-born workers.”

The Pew analysis highlights several policy changes that have affected the number of immigrants in the country, beginning during then-President Biden’s term.

In June 2024, Biden signed a proclamation that bars migrants from seeking asylum along the U.S. border with Mexico at times when crossings are high, a change that was designed to make it harder for those who enter the country without prior authorization.

Trump, who campaigned on hard-line immigration policies, signed an executive order on the first day of his second term, declaring an “invasion” at the southern border. The move severely restricted entry into the country by barring people who arrive between ports of entry from seeking asylum or invoking other protections that would allow them to temporarily remain in the U.S.

Widespread immigration enforcement operations across Southern California began in June, prompting pushback from advocates and local leaders. The federal government responded by deploying thousands of Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. after the raids sparked scattered protests.

Homeland Security agents have arrested 4,481 undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area since June 6, the agency said this month.

Narro said the decrease in immigrants outlined in the study may not be as severe as the numbers suggest because of a reduction in response rates amid heightened enforcement.

“When you have the climate that you have today with fear of deportation, being arrested or detained by ICE — all the stuff that’s coming out of the Trump administration — people are going to be less willing to participate in the survey and documentation that goes into these reports,” Narro said.

Michael Capuano, research director at Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit that advocates for a reduction in immigration, said the numbers are trending in the right direction.

“We see it as a positive start,” Capuano said. “Obviously enforcement at the border is now working. The population is beginning to decrease. We’d like to see that trend continue because, ultimately, we think the policy of the last four years has been proven to be unsustainable.”

Capuano disagrees that the decrease in immigrants will cause problems for the country’s workforce.

“We don’t believe that ultimately there’s going to be this huge disruption,” he said. “There is no field that Americans won’t work in. Pew notes in its own study that American-born workers are the majority in every job field.”

In 2023, the last year with complete data, 33 million immigrants were part of the country’s workforce, including about 10 million undocumented individuals. Roughly 19% of workers were immigrants in 2023, up from 15% two decades earlier, according to Pew.

“Immigrants are a huge part of American society,” said Toby Higbie, a professor of history and labor studies at UCLA. “Those who are running the federal government right now imagine that they can remove all immigrants from this society, but it’s just not going to happen. It’s not going to happen because the children of immigrants will fight against it and because our country needs immigrant workers to make the economy work.”

The United States experienced a negative net immigration in the 1930s during the Great Depression when at least 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans left the country, often as a result of government pressure and repatriation programs. Not long after, the U.S. implemented the bracero program in 1942 in which the U.S. allowed millions of Mexican citizens to work in the country to address labor shortages during World War II.

Higbie predicts the decline in immigration won’t last long, particularly if prices on goods rise amid labor shortages.

“You could say that there’s a cycle here where we invite immigrants to work in our economy, and then there’s a political reaction by some in our country, and they kick them out, and then we invite them back,” he said. “I suspect that the Trump administration, after going through this process of brutally deporting people, will turn around and propose a guest worker program in order to maintain a docile immigrant workforce.”

A Reuters/Ipsos survey shows 59 percent of US respondents say Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has been excessive.

Washington, DC – Most Americans believe that all countries should recognise Palestine as a state, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests, as public support for Israel in the United States continues to plunge amid the atrocities in Gaza.

A majority of respondents – 59 percent – also said that Israel’s military response in Gaza has been excessive.

The survey, released on Wednesday, quizzed 4,446 US adults between August 13 and 16.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “Palestine should be recognised as a country by all UN members”. The number rose to 78 percent amongst Democrats, compared to 41 percent of Republicans.

Strikingly, fewer Democratic respondents, 77 percent, agreed that “Israel should be recognised as a country by all UN members”.

The study comes as global outrage grows against Israel’s campaign of destruction, starvation and displacement in Gaza, which leading rights groups have labelled as a genocide.

Several US allies, including France, the United Kingdom and Canada, have said that they intend to recognise Palestine as a state at the United Nations General Assembly next month.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has rejected international efforts to recognise a Palestinian state and dismissed the moves as meaningless.

The overwhelming majority of countries already recognise Palestine. It remains to be seen how further recognition by Western countries would impact Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank – the two territories that would form a Palestinian state.

Rights advocates have been calling on the international community to impose tangible consequences on Israel for abuses against Palestinians, including sanctions and an arms embargo.

Despite protests by European countries, Israel is pushing on with a campaign to seize Gaza City, an assault that risks displacing tens of thousands of people and destroying what remains of the area that was once the largest city in Palestine.

In the West Bank, Israel continues to step up military and settler attacks while building more settlements in violation of international law.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich celebrated a newly announced plan for 3,400 illegal Israeli housing units between occupied East Jerusalem and Palestinian communities in the West Bank as an effort to eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state.

“The Palestinian state is being erased from the table not by slogans but by deeds,” Smotrich said, according to the Times of Israel. “Every settlement, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea.”

Last year, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories – Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Successive US administrations have verbally supported the two-state solution, while continuing to provide Israel with billions of dollars in military aid as it further entrenches its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Trump – a staunch supporter of Israel – has broken with traditional policy, refusing to explicitly back the two-state solution or criticise settlement expansion.

Still, US public opinion has continued to turn against Israel.

In a YouGov poll released on Tuesday, 43 percent of US respondents said they believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, compared to 28 percent who disagreed with the statement.

Democrats, bless their hearts, keep trying to figure out the magic formula to stop President Trump. But here’s a cold splash of reality: If Trump’s popularity ever collapses, it will probably be because of something completely beyond their control.

In 2020, it wasn’t some brilliant strategy that defeated Trump. It was COVID. A global pandemic. An act of God (or Wuhan).

This raises an uncomfortable thought: the next disruption — the one that might shake up the political snow globe again — will probably be much bigger than COVID. That looming disturbance is artificial intelligence.

In a recent Substack essay, Pete Buttigieg suggested that “the number one leadership challenge for world leaders, including the President of the United States, will be to manage the changes that AI is bringing about.” He goes on to note that “our president — and his opposition — have yet to make clear what their AI policies even are.”

He’s not wrong about the bipartisan lack of preparation. And for this reason, the political consequences are likely to be brutal for whichever party is in charge when the tipping point arrives and AI upends the lives of millions of Americans.

Trump still has three and a half years left on the clock — just enough time for AI to yank the rug out from under him. That’s a golden opportunity for Democrats, if they’re smart enough to capitalize on it.

But Democrats should hold off on gleefully penciling in 2028 as the year AI hands them the keys to the White House in perpetuity. Why? Because huge shocks to the system tend to empower either a) bold problem solvers or b) populist demagogues.

Lest we forget, the last seismic tech shift — the rise of the Information Age — gave us globalization, economic dislocation (for working-class Americans) and (eventually) Donald Trump.

This next disruption could be even more traumatic. AI isn’t just coming for truck drivers. It’s coming for legal assistants, graphic designers, junior software developers, even (ahem) writers. College graduates who spent decades believing their degree was a shield against obsolescence are about to get a taste of what coal miners, steelworkers, typists and travel agents have already endured.

When that happens, disenchanted moderates will radicalize, and income inequality will detonate. The people who build and control AI will obviously get filthy rich. So will superstar surgeons and elite litigators — people whose rarefied expertise and skills can’t be replicated remotely. But their legions of associates, researchers and paralegals will vanish like Blockbuster Video.

Now, for generations, lost jobs and industries were replaced by new ones — thanks to what economists call “creative destruction.” The buggy maker gave way to the auto industry and the auto mechanic, and society moved forward. But this time, the old rules may not apply — at least, not by virtue of some organic “invisible hand.”

If this shift is as severe and pervasive as many believe it will be (a huge caveat, to be sure), it won’t be solved by fiddling around with marginal tax rates or by mildly expanding unemployment benefits. It will require a vast reimagining of what the government does — the kind of thing that would make free-market purists break out in hives.

But here’s where it gets tricky for Democrats: They can’t simply hand displaced workers a check and call it a solution.

This is the core problem with universal basic income, often touted as the answer to AI-driven job losses. The modest $1,000-a-month figure that’s been floated is a joke. But even if the amount were higher, it would still have to be paired with meaningful work.

Something Democrats must learn: People don’t just want money. They crave dignity, purpose, belonging and a reason to get up in the morning.

That means thinking big and finding meaningful opportunities for the displaced to serve and provide value. Imagine one teacher for every five students in America’s public school and college classrooms. Imagine school buses with three adults instead of one overworked driver.

Imagine a national corps of well-paid nurses and physical therapists making regular visits to isolated seniors and providing full-time home healthcare.

Picture teams of young, tech-savvy Americans helping retirees navigate their iPads, iPhones, TVs and other devices — closing the digital divide for an entire generation.

Now, pair that with a bold expansion of union apprenticeships to train the next wave of electricians, plumbers and carpenters — alongside free college or vocational training in exchange for a year or two of national service.

It wouldn’t happen overnight. Managing this transition would require robust unemployment benefits — say, 90% of prior salary for a fixed period — not as welfare, but as an investment in people and a dividend on the value they’ve helped create by virtue of tax dollars (that built the internet) and data (that fuel automation). Because again, addressing the dilemma of job displacement is about more than money.

Which brings us to some important questions we had better answer.

What does it mean to be a citizen in a society when AI makes half of the labor market feel redundant? How do you retain your identity and sense of self-worth when the work you have dedicated your life to can be more efficiently done by artificial intelligence?

And how do we redeploy human beings — tens of millions of them — into roles that make life better for others and give them back the self-respect that comes from service?

AI might be the great test of our political age, and the party that passes this test will be remembered as our savior.

The party that fails this test will be remembered — if at all — as the one fiddling while Rome was automated.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

MEXICO CITY — The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions Wednesday on more than a dozen Mexican companies and four people it says worked with a powerful drug trafficking cartel to scam elderly Americans in a multimillion-dollar timeshare fraud.

The network of 13 businesses in areas near the seaside tourist destination of Puerto Vallarta were accused of working with the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, a group designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization.

In a scheme dating back to 2012, four cartel associates are accused of defrauding American citizens of their life savings through elaborate rental and resale schemes, according to a Treasury statement. In the span of six months, officials said they were able to document $23.1 million sent from mostly people in the U.S. to scammers in Mexico.

The sanctions imposed by the administration of President Trump would prohibit Americans from doing business with the alleged cartel associates and block any of their assets in the U.S.

“We will continue our effort to completely eradicate the cartels’ ability to generate revenue, including their efforts to prey on elderly Americans through timeshare fraud,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

In past years, the administration of then-President Biden also sanctioned associates and accountants related to such schemes.

The Wednesday announcement was made amid an ongoing effort by the Trump administration and the Mexican government to crack down on cartels and their diverse sources of income.

The U.S. Treasury Department has slapped sanctions on a variety of people from a Mexican rapper who it accused of laundering cartel money to Mexican banks facilitating money transfers in sales of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl.

The announcement also came one day after Mexico sent 26 high-ranking cartel figures to the U.S. in the latest major deal with the Trump administration as Mexico tries to avoid threatened tariffs.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a clear mind about the value of Social Security on Aug. 14, 1935, the day he signed it into law.

“The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure,” he said in the Oval Office. “We can never insure 100 per cent of the population against 100 per cent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against … poverty-ridden old age.”

He called it a “cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.” FDR envisioned further programs to bring relief to the needy and healthcare for all Americans. Some of that happened during the following nine decades, but the structure is still incomplete. And now, as Social Security observes the 90th anniversary of that day, the program faces a crisis.

If there are doubts about whether Social Security will survive long enough to observe its centennial, those have less to do with its fiscal challenges, the solutions of which are certainly within the economic reach of the richest nation on Earth. They have more to do with partisan politics, specifically the culmination of a decades-long GOP project to dismantle the most successful, and the most popular, government assistance program in American history.

From a distance, the raids on the program’s customer service infrastructure and the security of its data mounted by Elon Musk’s DOGE earlier this year looked somewhat random.

Fueled by abject ignorance about how the program worked and what its data meant, DOGE set in place plans to cut the program’s staff by 7,000, or 12 percent, and to close dozens of field offices serving Social Security applicants and beneficiaries. This at a time when the Social Security case load is higher than ever and staffing had already approached a 50-year low.

This might have been billed as an effort to impose “efficiency” on the system. But “a more accurate description,” writes Monique Morrissey of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, “is sabotage.”

That has been conservatives’ long-term plan — make interactions with Social Security more involved, more difficult and more time-consuming in order to make it seem ever less relevant to average Americans’ lives. Once that happened, the public would be softened up to accept a privatized retirement system.

Get the inefficient government off the backs of the people, the idea goes, so Wall Street can saddle up. George W. Bush’s privatization plan, indeed, was conceived and promoted by Wall Street bankers, who thirsted for access to the trillions of dollars passing through the system’s hands.

This was never much of a secret, but it simmered beneath the surface. But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at a July 30 event sponsored by Breitbart News, said the quiet part out loud. Referring to a private savings account program enacted as part of the GOP budget reconciliation bill Trump signed July 4, Bessent said, “In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security.”

The private accounts are to be jump-started with $1,000 deposits for children born this year through 2028, to be invested in stock index mutual funds; families can add up to $5,000 annually in after-tax income, with withdrawals beginning when the child reaches 18, though in some cases incurring a stiff penalty.

I asked the Treasury Department for a clarification of Bessent’s remark, but didn’t receive a reply. Bessent, however, did try to walk the statement back via a post on X in which he stated that the Trump accounts are “an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments.”

Sorry, Mr. Secretary, no sale. You’re the one who talked about “privatizing Social Security” at the Breitbart event. You’re stuck with it.

Plainly, an “additive” benefit would have nothing to do with Social Security. How it would “supplement the sanctity” of Social Security benefits isn’t apparent from Bessent’s statement, or the law. Still, we can parse out the implications based on the long history of conservative attacks on the program.

In 1983, the libertarian Cato Journal published a paper by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, two policy analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, titled “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy—i.e., for privatizing Social Security. From Lenin they drew the idea of mobilizing the working class to undermine existing capitalist structures.

Cato’s “Leninist” strategy paper explicitly advocated encouraging workers to opt out of Social Security by promising them a payroll tax reduction if they put the money in a private account.

IRAs, the authors asserted, would acclimate Americans to entrusting their retirements to a privatized system. They advocated an increase in the maximum annual contribution and its tax deductibility.

“The public would gradually become more familiar with the private option,” they wrote. “If that did happen, it would be far easier than it is now to adopt the private plan as their principal source of old-age insurance and retirement income.” In other words, it would provide a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.

(Germanis has since emerged as a cogent critic of conservative economics. Butler served at Heritage until 2014 and is currently a scholar in residence at the Brookings Institution; he told me in March that he still believes in parallel systems of private retirement savings as we have today, but as “add on” savings rather than a substitute for Social Security.)

Cato, a think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, has never relinquished its quest to privatize Social Security; the notion still occupies pride of place on the institution’s web page devoted to the program.

In 2005, when I attended a two-day conference on the topic at Cato’s Washington headquarters, Michael D. Tanner, then the chair of Cato’s Social Security task force, explained that Cato wasn’t concerned so much with the system’s fiscal and economic issues as with its politics. Its goal, he stated frankly, was to unmake FDR’s New Deal.

“This is about whether we redefine a relationship between individuals and government that we’ve had since 1935,” he told me. “We say that what was done was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. Our position is that people need to be responsible for their own lives.”

Yet forcing dramatic change on a program so widely trusted and appreciated is a heavy lift. That’s why Republicans have tried to downplay their intentions. Back in 2019, for instance, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) talked about the need to hold discussions about Social Security’s future “behind closed doors.”

Secrecy was essential, Ernst said, “so we’re not being scrutinized by this group or the other, and just have an open and honest conversation about what are some of the ideas that we have for maintaining Social Security in the future.”

As I observed at the time, that was a giveaway: The only time politicians take actions behind closed doors is when they know the results will be massively unpopular. Raising taxes on the rich to pay for Social Security benefits? That discussion can be held in the open, because the option is decisively favored in opinion polls. Cut benefits? That needs to be done in secret, because Americans overwhelmingly oppose it.

Curiously, Trump and his fellow Republicans seem to think that attacking Social Security is an electoral winner. Possibly they’ve lost sight of the program’s importance to the average American.

Among Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older, 39% of men and 44% of women receive half their income or more from Social Security. In the same cohort, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

Notwithstanding that reality, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently asserted that delays in sending out Social Security checks or bank deposits would be no big deal.

“Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month,” Lutnick said. “My mother-in-law, who’s 94 — she wouldn’t call and complain…. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month.” He claimed that only “fraudsters” would complain.

I had a different take. Mine was that even a 24-hour delay in benefit payments would have a cataclysmic fallout for the Republican Party. It would be front-page news coast to coast. There would be nowhere for them to hide.

While bringing misery to millions of Americans, a delay — which would be unprecedented since the first checks went out in 1940 — would be a gift for Democrats, if they knew how to use it.

Where will we go from here? The current administration has already done damage to this critically-important program. An acting commissioner Trump installed briefly interfered with the enrollment process for infants born in Maine—an important procedure to ensure that government benefits continue to flow to their families—because the state’s governor had pushed back against Trump in public.

In July, the newly-appointed Social Security commissioner, Frank Bisignano, allowed a false and flagrantly political email to go out to beneficiaries and to be posted on the program’s website implying that the budget reconciliation bill relieved most seniors of federal income taxes on their benefits. It did nothing of the kind.

To the extent that Social Security may face a fiscal reckoning in the next decade, the most effective fix is well-understood by those familiar with the program’s structure. It’s removing the income cap on the payroll tax, which tops out this year at $176,100 in wage income.

Up to that point, wages are taxed at 12.4%, split evenly between workers and their employers. Above the ceiling, the tax is zero. Remove the cap, and make capital gains, dividends and interest income subject to the tax, and Social Security will remain fully solvent into the foreseeable future.

Trump and his fellow Republicans don’t seem to understand how most Americans view Social Security: as an “entitlement,” not because they think they’re getting something for nothing, but because they know they’ve paid for it all their working lives.

As much as the system’s foes would like it to go away, as long as the rest of us remain vigilant against efforts to “redefine a relationship between individuals and government” established in 1935, we will be able to celebrate its 100th anniversary 10 years from now, in 2035.

It’s not a surprise that Donald Trump has pushed Texas Republicans to redraw congressional district lines to find five more GOP seats for the U.S. House of Representatives in time for the 2026 midterm elections. He just signed a deeply unpopular bill to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut healthcare for millions of people, and his approval rating keeps dropping. In an election based on district maps as they stand — and should stand until the next census, in 2030 — his party’s 2026 prospects for holding the House are grim. Unlike his predecessors, he’s proven willing to break our democracy to get what he wants.

If Trump’s gambit succeeds — and right now it looks as if it will — then California and other states that could counter the premature Texas redistricting have only one choice — to respond in kind.

Consider the stakes: A majority of Americans disapprove of Trump’s job performance and have done so since within a month of his taking office. Yet he is undercutting the institutions that we’d otherwise depend on to speak independently and resist presidential excesses — judges, journalists, university leaders and even government officials who make the mistake of neutrally reporting facts like economic data.

With history as a predictor, Democrats would succeed in the 2026 midterms, retake the House and provide checks and balances on the Trump administration. The framers regarded Congress as the primary actor in the federal government, but it is now a shell of its former self. Elections are how America holds presidents in check. But if Trump gets his way, voters may vote but nothing will change. The already tenuous connection between the ballot box and the distribution of power will evaporate.

One can understand why Democratic legislators might not want to mimic Trump’s tactics. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who represented New York for nearly a quarter century, warned decades ago about the tendency to “define deviancy down” and normalize actions that are anything but normal. But we don’t get to pick and choose the times we live in or the type of response that is required to meet the moment.

When voters in California approved independent redistricting 15 years ago, they would have reasonably expected that many other states would follow their lead. They would have hoped that Congress or the Supreme Court would step in to create a federal standard. They would have understood other states changing the rules for purely political reasons as unconscionable. And yet here we are.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom succinctly put it: “California’s moral high ground means nothing if we’re powerless because of it.”

The solution Newsom has proposed is a prudent one — redrawing just the congressional lines, not those for the state Legislature as well, and only doing so until the next census, when Trump will have passed from the scene.

Every objection to the proposal falls apart under inspection.

A radical left-wing plot? Even many moderate members of the Democratic Party, such as Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, have praised it as a necessary response.

An end run around voters? Unlike in Texas, California voters themselves will decide whether to approve the plan.

An expensive special election? Cost was a reason to oppose the wishful-thinking 2021 recall election launched against Newsom (which he defeated with more than 60% of the vote), but the argument applies less so today given that Trump’s extreme unilateral actions — budget cuts and slashed programs, ICE raids, the attack on higher education, including the University of California — are putting California’s fiscal future at risk.

A race to the bottom? The University of Michigan game theorist Robert Axelrod demonstrated that if we want to foster cooperation, a tit-for-tat strategy outperforms all others. As a summary of his research succinctly put it: “Be nice. Be ready to forgive. But don’t be a pushover.” California officials have indicated that they will withdraw the proposal if Texas Republicans stand down.

A political risk? Certainly, but the leader taking on the risk is Newsom. If the proposal is defeated at the ballot, voters will be in the same position they are in right now.

Czech dissident-turned-statesman Vaclav Havel, in his famous essay “The Power of the Powerless,” described the Prague Spring not only as a “clash between two groups on the level of real power” but as the “final act … of a long drama originally played out chiefly in the theatre of the spirit and the conscience of society.”

We do not know how the current drama will play out. But the choice that Havel set out — of living within a lie or living within the truth — is as potent as ever. If Trump continues to goad Texas into abandoning its commitment to the norms of our election rules, Americans who hold onto hope that their voices still matter will be counting on California to show the way.

Vivek Viswanathan is a fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. He served in the Biden White House as senior policy advisor and special assistant to the president, and previously worked for Gov. Jerry Brown and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

There are people who keep reliving their glory days, and then there’s Dean Cain.

The film and TV actor is best known for his work in the 1990s series “Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.”

He was no Christopher Reeve or Henry Cavill.

But enough people remember Cain in blue tights and a red cape so that he’s a regular on the fan convention circuit.

It’s his calling card, so when the Trump administration put out the call to recruit more ICE agents, guess who answered the call?

Big hint: Up, up and a güey!

On Aug. 6, the up until then not exactly buzzworthy Cain revealed on Instagram that he joined la migra — and everyone else should too!

The 59-year old actor made his announcement as an orchestral version of John Williams’ stirring “Superman” theme played lightly below his speech.

Superman used to go after Nazis, Klansmen and intergalactic monsters; now, Superman — er, Cain — wants to go after Tamale Lady. His archenemy used to be Lex Luthor; now real-life Bizarro Superman wants to go to work for the Trump administration’s equally bald-pated version of Lex Luthor: Stephen Miller.

“You can defend your homeland and get great benefits,” Cain said, flashing his bright white smile and brown biceps. Behind him was an American flag in a triangle case and a small statue depicting Cain in his days as a Princeton Tigers football player. “If you want to save America, ICE is arresting the worst of the worst and removing them from America’s streets.”

Later that day, Cain appeared on Fox News to claim he was going to “be sworn in as an ICE agent ASAP.” a role Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin later on clarified to the New York Times would be only honorary. His exaggeration didn’t stop the agency’s social media account to take a break from its usual stream of white supremacist dog whistles to gush over Cain’s announcement.

“Superman is encouraging Americans to become real-life superheroes,” it posted “by answering their country’s call to join the brave men and women of ICE to help protect our communities to arrest the worst of the worst.”

American heroes used to storm Omaha Beach. Now the Trump administration wants their version of them to storm the garden section of Home Depot.

Dean Cain speaks during a ceremony honoring Mehmet Oz, the former host of “The Dr. Oz Show,” with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Feb. 11, 2022.

(Chris Pizzello / Invision / Associated Press)

Its appeal to Superman is part of their campaign to cast la migra as good guys while casting all undocumented people as shadowy villains who deserve deportation — the faster and nastier the better. But as with almost anything involving American history, Team Trump has already perverted Superman’s mythos. In early June, they put Trump, who couldn’t leap over a bingo card in a single bound let alone a tall building, on the White House’s social media accounts in a Superman costume. This was accompanied with the slogan: “Truth. Justice. The American Way.” That was the day before Warner Bros. released its latest Man of Steel film.

Even non-comic book fans know that the hero born Kal-El on Krypton was always a goody-goody who stood up to bullies and protected the downtrodden. He came from a foreign land — a doomed planet, no less — as a baby. His alter ego, Clark Kent, is humble and kind, traits that carry over when he turns into Superman.

The character’s caretakers always leaned on that fictional background to comment on real-world events. In a 1950 poster, as McCarthyism was ramping up, DC Comics issued a poster in which Superman tells a group of kids that anyone who makes fun of people for their “religion, race or national origin … is un-American.”

A decade later, Superman starred in a comic book public service announcement in which he chided a teen who said “Those refugee kids can’t talk English or play ball or anything” by taking him to a shabby camp to show the boy the hardships refugees had to endure.

The Trumpworld version of Superman would fly that boy to “Alligator Alcatraz” to show him how cool it is to imprison immigrants in a swamp infested with crocodilians.

It might surprise you to know that in even more recent times, in a 2017 comic book, Superman saves a group of undocumented immigrants from a man in an American flag do-rag who opened fire on them. When the attempted murderer claimed his intended targets stole his job, Superman snarled “The only person responsible for the blackness smothering your soul … is you.”

Superman used to tell Americans that immigrants deserved our empathy; Super Dean wants to round them up and ship them out.

Rapists? Murderers? Terrorists? That’s who Superman né Cain says ICE is pursuing — the oft repeated “worst of the worst” — but Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse found that 71% of people currently held in ICE detention have no criminal records as of July 27 .

I don’t think the real Superman — by whom I mean the fictional one whom Cain seems to think he’s the official spokesperson for just because he played him in a middling dramedy 30-some years ago — would waste his strength and X-ray vision to nab people like that.

Dean “Discount Superman” Cain should grab some popcorn and launch on a Superman movie marathon to refresh himself on what the Man of Steel actually stood for. He can begin with the latest.

Its plot hinges on Lex Luthor trying to convince the U.S. government that Superman is an “alien” who came to the U.S. to destroy it.

“He’s not a man — he’s an It. A thing,” the bad guy sneers at one point, later on claiming Superman’s choirboy persona is “lulling us into complacency so he can dominate [the U.S.] without resistance.”

Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor and David Corenswet as Superman in Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Superman.”

(Jessica Miglio / Warner Bros. Pictures)

Luthor’s scheme, which involves manipulating social media and television networks to turn public opinion against his rival, eventually works. Superman turns himself in and is whisked away to a cell far away from the U.S. along with other political prisoners. Luthor boasts that “[constitutional] rights don’t apply to extraterrestrial organisms.”

Tweak that line a little and it could have come from the mouth of Stephen Miller.

Director James Gunn told a British newspaper that his film’s message is “about human kindness and obviously there will be jerks out there who are just not kind and will take it as offensive just because it is about kindness. But screw them.”

He also called Superman an “immigrant,” which set Cain off. He called Gunn “woke” on TMZ and urged Gunn to create original characters and keep Superman away from politics.

Well, Super Dean can do his thing for ICE and Trump. He can flash his white teeth for promotional Trump administration videos as he does who knows what for the deportation machine.

Just leave Superman out of it.

At a recent news conference, President Trump touched on questions about tariffs, Gaza and vaccines before zeroing in on one of his favorite subjects: TV and radio ratings. A journalist, referring to an unconfirmed report that Howard Stern’s SiriusXM radio show was being canceled, handed Trump a sugar-coated softball: “Is the Hate Trump business model going out of business because it’s not popular with the American people?”

The president was primed and ready to take a swipe at late-night television, namely Paramount’s recent cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” and other types of hosted programs he perceives as The Enemy. Anything to distract from his broken promises around IVF funding, a tepid jobs report and his failure in producing the Epstein files.

“Colbert has no talent,” said the president. “I mean, I could take anybody here. I could go outside in the beautiful streets and pick a couple of people that do just as well or better. They’d get higher ratings than he did. He’s got no talent. Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They’re next. They’re going to be going. I hear they’re going to be going. I don’t know, but I would imagine because they’d get — you know, Colbert has better ratings than Kimmel or Fallon.”

Ratings are important to Trump. It’s data he’s fond of weaponizing. Just ask his “Celebrity Apprentice” successor Arnold Schwarzenegger. But what about the president’s ratings?

According to a Gallup poll, six months into Trump’s second term, his job approval rating has dipped to 37%, the lowest of this term and just slightly higher than his all-time worst rating of 34% at the end of his first term.

In comparison to other two-term presidents at the same point in their presidency, he’s well below the 59% average, second-quarter rating set by all post-World War II presidents elected from 1952 to 2020. Bill Clinton (44%) came the closest as the only other president to have a sub-majority approval rating during his second quarter.

So Trump and Clinton do have something in common other than their association with the late sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein. Which brings us to polling numbers about Trump’s handling of those files.

A recent YouGov poll shows 46% of Americans think Trump was involved in crimes allegedly committed by Epstein. A whooping 82% of Americans — including 91% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans — believe that the government should release all documents it has on the Epstein case. And only 4% of those polled are in favor of Trump pardoning Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.

There are no major polls yet on how folks feel about Maxwell being quietly moved from a Florida prison to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas where the majority of inmates are serving time for nonviolent offenses and white-collar crimes. Maxwell’s role in a violent crime — the recruiting and trafficking of minors for sex — led to her 20-year sentence.

Trump’s public obsession with ratings date back to his time hosting the television reality competition “The Apprentice.” It was a genuine hit in that first season, rounding out the year 2004 as the seventh-most-watched TV show of the year.

But its ratings declined steadily each year after that, according to the Chicago Tribune, from 11th place overall in its second season, to 15th, then 38th. By its sixth season, it finished as the 75th-most-watched show. If Trump’s presidency were a reality TV show, he’d be headed into his sixth season.

Enough about TV shows. Let’s look at a quantifiable way to apply television ratings to the presidency: inaugurations. According to Nielsen, Trump’s first swearing-in ceremony drew 30.6 million total viewers — 19% less than Barack Obama’s in 2009, when 37.8 million tuned in.

Trump’s 2025 swearing-in ceremony had 6 million fewer U.S. viewers than his first-term inauguration. Even worse, that’s 9 million fewer viewers than Biden attracted for his big day in 2021.

Here’s where the art of distraction comes in handy. Focus on other people’s faults to cover your own. Enter the Clintons, again. At Wednesday’s news conference, Trump said that shock jock Stern’s ratings “went down when he endorsed Hillary Clinton [in 2016].” What’s Trump’s excuse?

A quarter of Latinos who supported President Donald Trump in the November election are not guaranteed to vote for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections, according to a new national poll by Equis, a leading research and polling group.

Last week Equis, alongside progressive think tank Data for Progress, released a July memo that summarized key findings from a national poll of 1,614 registered voters, conducted between July 7 and July 17.

This time frame coincides with some notable turning points in politics: namely, when Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law, as well as his execution of mass deportations and controversial handling of the Epstein files.

Respondents were asked, “If the 2026 election for United States Congress were held today, for whom would you vote?” Only 27% replied that they would vote for a Republican candidate, marking a significant political party drop from the 45% who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

A quarter of those polled said they were not sure whom they would vote for (16%), would vote for someone else (5%), or would not vote at all (4%).

This shaky political alignment comes at a critical time for Republicans, who are banking on continual Latino support in 2026 — especially as Texas Republicans plan to flip five blue seats under a newly proposed congressional map.

The Equis study also found that 63% of Latinos disapproved of Trump’s job as president in July, a slight uptick from polling numbers in May, when 60% disapproved. This rating seems to reflect broader sentiments regarding the state of the U.S. economy: 64% of Latinos rated the economy as “somewhat or very poor,” while only 34% viewed it as “somewhat or very good.”

However, a disapproval of Trump does not mean Latinos have rushed to back the Democratic Party. Half the Latinos polled said Democrats care more about people like them, versus the 25% who said Republicans care more. Meanwhile, 17% said they believe that neither party cares.

Swing voters — including those who Equis calls “Biden defectors,” or voters who elected Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024 — are twice as likely to say that neither party cares about people like them (38%).

“Growing dissatisfaction with Trump offers Democrats an opportunity, but only if they are willing to capitalize on it,” the July memo states.

Overall, Trump’s national approval ratings are taking a nosedive, according to aggregate polling by the New York Times, which notes that Trump’s approach to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation has angered his base.

On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Justice Department for the files; lawmakers believe they could implicate Trump and other former top officials in the sex-trafficking investigation.

Trump’s anti-immigration policies have also likely shifted his popularity. Early July Gallup polling revealed that Americans have grown more positive toward immigration — 79% of Americans say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, which marks a 64% increase from last year and a 25-year record high.

July 31 (UPI) — Nearly three quarters of U.S. adults experience some kind of online scam or cyber attack every week, data from the Pew Research Center showed Thursday.

Most people receive scam calls, texts and emails at least weekly, the report said. Americans reported more than $16.6 billion in scam-related losses in 2024, the FBI said.

Many U.S. financial institutions, retail corporations and federal officials are raising the issue, warning consumers about the attacks and working to educate the public about ways to avoid them and steps to take if they fall victim.

“While Americans see older adults as more vulnerable to these crimes, significant portions of both older and younger adults have been scammed and targeted online,” the report said.

Nearly half of the respondents reported that online hackers made fraudulent charges on their credit or debit cards, the most common form of attack.

More than a third reported purchasing an item online that never arrived or that was a counterfeit item for which they never received a refund.

Nearly a third said personal information was hacked through a bank, social media, email or bank account, and a quarter of respondents said they received a scam text message or phone call that resulted in them providing personal information to a scammer.

People between 18 and 29 were the most frequent victims of the scams, the report continued.

Pew polled 9,397 adults between April 14 and 20.

Less than half of Americans believe racial minorities face substantial discrimination, in a reversal of the previous trend.

Only 40 percent of people in the United States believe that Black and Hispanic people face “quite a bit” or “a great deal” of discrimination, according to a new poll highlighting a reversal in previously held perceptions.

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Thursday also found that 30 percent of those surveyed felt the same way about Asian people, and only 10 percent believed that white people were discriminated against.

“The number of people saying Asian people and Black people are experiencing a substantial amount of discrimination has dropped since an AP-NORC poll conducted in April 2021,” according to a statement on the NORC website.

The poll comes as US President Donald Trump continues to attack initiatives that promote diversity at universities and the workplace, and to pressure institutions not aligned with his political agenda in the name of combatting left-wing ideas.

In the spring of 2021, amid massive protests against racial injustice following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 60 percent of people polled believed that Black people face “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of discrimination in the US. That figure has now dropped to less than 50 percent.

About 74 percent of Black people say their communities continue to face substantial discrimination, while just 39 percent of white respondents said that Black people face serious discrimination.

People in the US have also become more sceptical about corporate efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, often referred to as DEI. Many large companies have started to roll back such efforts.

Between 33 percent and 41 percent said that DEI made no difference at all, and a quarter said it was likely to increase discrimination against minorities.

“Anytime they’re in a space that they’re not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course … they are seen as only getting there because of those factors,” Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, told the Associated Press. “It’s all negated by someone saying, ‘You’re only here to meet a quota.’”

But the Trump administration has gone far beyond criticisms of DEI efforts, wielding a wide definition of the term to exert pressure on institutions and organisations that he sees as hostile to his political agenda. The president has threatened, for example, to withhold federal disaster aid from states that do not align with his efforts to roll back anti-discrimination measures and open probes into companies with DEI policies, which he has framed as racist against white people.

A majority of those polled also believe that undocumented immigrants face discrimination, as the Trump administration pursues a programme of mass deportations that have caused fear in immigrant communities across the country.

“Most people, 58 percent, think immigrants without legal status also face discrimination — the highest amount of any identity group,” AP-NORC states. “Four in 10 say immigrants living legally in the United States also face this level of discrimination.”

The poll also found that more than half of the public believes Muslims face substantial discrimination, and about one-third said the same for Jewish people.

WASHINGTON — Slightly less than half of U.S. adults believe that Black people face “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of discrimination in the United States, according to a poll. That’s a decline from the solid majority, 60%, who thought Black Americans faced high levels of discrimination in the spring of 2021, months after racial reckoning protests in response to the police killing of George Floyd.

Significant numbers of Americans also think diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, also known as DEI, are backfiring against the groups they’re intended to help, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including many people who belong to those groups.

The findings suggest Americans’ views on racial discrimination have shifted substantially since four years ago, when many companies launched efforts to promote diversity within their workforces and the products they sold.

Since then, many of those companies have reversed themselves and retreated from their diversity practices, a trend that’s accelerated this year under pressure from President Trump, a Republican who has sought to withhold federal money from schools and companies that promote DEI.

Now, it’s clear that views are changing as well as company policies.

Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, says the concept of DEI has made the workplace difficult for Black people and women in new ways.

“Anytime they’re in a space that they’re not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course … they are seen as only getting there because of those factors,” Brider said. “It’s all negated by someone saying, ‘You’re only here to meet a quota.’”

Reversal in views of racial discrimination

The poll finds 45% of U.S. adults think Black people face high levels of discrimination, down from 60% in the spring of 2021. There was a similar drop in views about the prevalence of serious discrimination against Asian people, which fell from 45% in the 2021 poll — conducted a month after the Atlanta spa shootings, which killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent — to 32% in the current survey.

There’s no question the country has backtracked from its “so-called racial reckoning” and the experiences of particular groups such as Black people are being downplayed, said Phillipe Copeland, a professor at Boston University School of Social Work.

Americans’ views about discrimination haven’t shifted when it comes to all groups, though. Just under half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say Hispanic people face at least “quite a bit of discrimination,” and only 15% say this about white people. Both numbers are similar to when the question was last asked in April 2021.

Divisions on the impact of DEI on Black and Hispanic people

The poll indicates that less than half of Americans think DEI has a benefit for the people it’s intended to help.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say DEI reduces discrimination against Black people, while about one-third say this about Hispanic people, women and Asian people. Many — between 33% and 41% — don’t think DEI makes a difference either way. About one-quarter of U.S. adults believe that DEI actually increases discrimination against these groups.

Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white people to think DEI efforts end up increasing discrimination against people like them.

About 4 in 10 Black adults and about one-third of Hispanic adults say DEI increases discrimination against Black people, compared with about one-quarter of white adults. There is a similar split between white adults and Black and Hispanic adults on assessments of discrimination against Hispanic people.

Among white people, it’s mostly Democrats who think DEI efforts reduce discrimination against Black and Hispanic people. Only about one-quarter of white independents and Republicans say the same.

Pete Parra, a 59-year-old resident of Gilbert, Ariz., thinks that DEI is making things harder for racial minorities now. He worries about how his two adult Hispanic sons will be treated when they apply for work.

“I’m not saying automatically just give it to my sons,” said Parra, who leans toward the Democratic Party. But he’s concerned that now factors other than merit may take priority.

“If they get passed over for something,” he said, “they’re not going to know (why).”

About 3 in 10 say DEI increases discrimination against white people

The poll shows that Americans aren’t any more likely to think white people face discrimination than they were in 2021. And more than half think DEI doesn’t make a difference when it comes to white people or men.

But a substantial minority — about 3 in 10 U.S. adults — think DEI increases discrimination against white people. Even more white adults, 39%, hold that view, compared with 21% of Hispanic adults and 13% of Black adults.

The recent political focus on DEI has included the idea that white people are more often overlooked for career and educational opportunities because of their race.

John Bartus, a 66-year-old registered Republican in Twin Falls, Idaho, says that DEI might have been “a good thing for all races of people, but it seems like it’s gone far left.” It’s his impression that DEI compels companies to hire people based on their race or if they identify as LGBTQ+.

“The most qualified person ought to get a job based on their merit or based on their educational status,” Bartus said.

Brider, the Black California resident, objects to the notion that white people face the same level of discrimination as Black people. But while she thinks the aims of DEI are admirable, she also sees the reality as flawed.

“I do think there needs to be something that ensures that there is a good cross-section of people in the workplace,” Brider said. “I just don’t know what that would look like, to be honest.”

Tang and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenneth Harris spent most of his days in Atlanta yearning for a life in a place where his dark skin color is not a source of suspicion, but a mark of a shared heritage. His chance came two years ago when he bought a one-way ticket to Kenya.

The 38-year-old retired veteran has found a community in the east African country’s capital, where he now runs an Airbnb business. He loves admiring Nairobi’s golden sunset from a rooftop terrace, and enjoys a luxurious lifestyle in a tastefully furnished apartment in an upmarket neighborhood.

Harris is part of a growing wave of African Americans who are relocating to Kenya, citing the need to connect with their ancestors — or “coming home,” a phrase often used among the Black community.

Like dozens of other African Americans who have moved to Nairobi in recent years, Harris was attracted to Kenya’s tropical climate and what he describes as the warmth and friendliness of the people he believes he shares a history and culture with.

In search of community and a better life

“I have always had that adventurous spirit, especially when I joined the military and got to go to different countries. So I am taking the opportunity to venture out to new places,” he said. “That is what allowed me to make a home away from home and Kenya is my new home.”

Some friends have reaching out to him to explore a “change from the U.S for their peace of mind,” he said.

Several other African Americans who have “come home” like him have set up thriving businesses in Nairobi that include travel agencies, restaurants and farms.

Many African Americans who have sought a better life abroad or are considering it said President Trump’s administration — with its crackdown on diversity programs — isn’t the main reason they want to move.

Rather, most say they had been mulling a move for some time, and the current political environment in the U.S. may be pushing them to act sooner than initially planned.

“I can’t say the administration is the reason why the people I know want to part ways from America. Some are planning to move for a better quality of living life,” Harris said.

Auston Holleman, an American YouTuber who has lived in various countries for almost a decade, said he settled on Kenya nine months ago because people “look like me.”

“It is not like going to Europe or going to some Latin American countries where there are not many Black people,” he said.

Holleman, who often films his daily life, said he felt that the social fabric in the U.S. was “broken.” In contrast, he said he felt socially accepted in Kenya. He cited an experience when his taxi driver’s car stopped, and in five minutes they got help from a random stranger.

“That made me realize I was in the right place,” he said.

Growing numbers are interested in leaving the U.S.

Other African countries have attracted even larger numbers of African Americans. Ghana, which launched a “Year of the Return” program to attract the Black diaspora in 2019, said last year it held a ceremony that granted citizenship to 524 people, mostly Black Americans.

African American businesses such as Adilah Relocation Services have seen a notable rise in the number of African Americans seeking to move to Kenya.

The company’s founder, Adilah Mohammad, moved to Kenya four days after her mother’s funeral in search of healing.

She says the peace and restoration she experienced in Kenya made her stay — and advocate for those searching for the same. Her company helps clients relocate by house hunting, shopping for furniture and ensuring banking and medical services are seamless.

“There are 15 families that have come so far, and we have five more on the calendar that are coming in the next 90 days. We have people that have booked for 2026 with no date, they just know that they are leaving,” she says.

Mohammad said many African Americans have been planning their move for decades.

“For me it is a movement. It is people deciding to make a choice for themselves, they are not being forced, shackles are being broken. When they say they are coming home, they are choosing to be free and it is mental freedom and so I am ecstatic,” she says.

Experts say African economies are likely to benefit from these moves, especially from those willing to tackle corruption and create a healthy environment for investors.

Raphael Obonyo, a public policy expert at U.N-Habitat, says the U.S is losing resources — as well as the popular narrative that America is the land of opportunities and dreams.

“This reverse migration is denting that narrative, so America is most likely to lose including things like brain drain,” he explained.

For Mohammad, the sense of belonging has given her peace within.

“I love being here. Returning to Africa is one thing, but finding the place that you feel like you belong is another,” she said.

Musambi and Tiro write for the Associated Press.

Landon Donovan can’t be sure he would have played international soccer had the World Cup not come to Pasadena in 1994, but he can say with certainty he wasn’t aware what international soccer was until then.

“I went to one game,” said Donovan, who was a 12-year-old prodigy the first time the World Cup was played in the U.S. “And I knew nothing — and I mean nothing — about soccer on the global scale. It opened my eyes because there was no soccer on TV, no internet. I didn’t know anything about it.”

Eight years after watching Romania eliminate Argentina at the Rose Bowl, Donovan was scoring the U.S. team’s final goal in the 2002 World Cup, helping the Americans reach the quarterfinals for the only time in the modern era.

The tournament will be back in the U.S. in less than 11 months, with the U.S. playing two of its three group games at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. And Donovan is certain some of the people watching will be kids who, like him, will be inspired by their first up-close look at the global game.

“There’s millions of kids who maybe played a little bit, or thought about playing, or play a lot and go to a World Cup game. It changes their life forever,” he said.

“Millions” might be a bit of a stretch, but the sentiment is well-taken. And it’s not just one Donovan experienced himself, but a transformation he saw take place at the 2015 Women’s World Cup final in Vancouver as well.

“I was watching these little girls in front of me just completely fall in love with the game right in front of my eyes,” he said. “That’s part of the reason why I’m critical or passionate about our team. It’s because I understand what the opportunity is.”

The criticism and passion Donovan is referencing are comments he made last month on the Unfiltered Soccer podcast he does with former USMNT teammate Tim Howard. In discussing the decision of players such as Christian Pulisic and Yunus Musah to pass up this summer’s CONCACAF Gold Cup, the last major tournament before next year’s World Cup, Donovan said their choice to take a “vacation” angered him.

The comments seemed hypocritical since Donovan took his own well-chronicled sabbatical from the game in 2013, missing some World Cup qualifiers. And in his case the break helped, with Donovan returning to the national team that summer to get a career-high 24 points (on eight goals and eight assists) in 10 games, only one of which the U.S. lost.

Pulisic said he needed both a mental and physical break after playing a career-high 3,650 minutes in all competitions for AC Milan last season and appearing in 118 games for club and country in the last 22 months. Donovan believes in and supports that idea, he clarified in a phone interview last week.

It was the timing he didn’t like.

“That’s his decision and only he gets to make that decision,” Donovan said. “So my criticism was never with him or anyone taking a break. It was choosing when to take the break and from which team they were taking the break.”

“It was at the expense of the national team growing this summer,” he added.

When Donovan took his respite he missed five games with the national team as well as training camp and five games with the Galaxy, which cost him the armband as captain and, he says, $1 million in salary. Pulisic, he argued, could have done the same, splitting his break between his club and the national team.

“So it was never about taking a break. The break is justified,” Donovan said. “It’s about prioritizing the national team.”

The idea of AC Milan giving Pulisic time off is a nonstarter, however. The American is the fifth-best-paid player at the club, earning a reported $5.8 million a season, and he was the team leader in goals and assists last season. With Milan chasing a European tournament berth down the stretch, there was no time for rest so Pulisic started 12 games in the final 7½ weeks. He was on fumes when the final whistle sounded.

So Donovan’s comments seemed influenced more by wisdom and jealously than reality.

Wisdom because, at 43, he knows that playing for the national team is an honor that doesn’t last forever and when it’s over you regret the games you missed more than you celebrate the ones you played. And jealousy because for all that Donovan accomplished — he retired as the national team’s all-time leader in goals, assists and starts and the MLS record-holder in goals, assists and championships — he never played a World Cup game at home. Pulisic, who turns 27 next month, will get that chance.

“That would have been incredible to play a World Cup in your prime in your home country. And knowing two of the games are in L.A., that is literally a dream come true,” he said.

“There is a massive opportunity to build this thing and get this country behind our team. I just don’t want this opportunity to get wasted.”

The last World Cup in the U.S. ended with the country forming a top-tier professional league in MLS, soccer becoming a top-five sport in the U.S., and the U.S. Soccer Foundation getting the funding needed to help grow soccer at the grassroots level. It also inspired a youthful Landon Donovan to become the greatest player in the country’s history.

As a result, the tournament will return to a country with a soccer culture far advanced from 1994.

“There’s a massive, massive wealth of talent here,” said Donovan, who speaks from experience after spending part of last week at a “dream team” tryout organized by Spanish club Real Madrid and Abbott, a global leader in the healthcare industry. “Some of those kids out there — 17, 18 years old — technically are better than guys I played with.”

The top 11 players from five tryout camps will go to Spain to train at Real Madrid’s complex. The fact that the richest club in the world came to the U.S. to scout players, Donovan said, is more evidence of soccer’s growth in this country, which he believes makes next summer even more important.

“We’re at a point where we’re doing a lot of things well,” Donovan said. “The one area where we are still struggling is in our development. It was eye-opening to watch some of these kids because I think we’re missing out still on a lot of these players.”

Next summer’s World Cup can close that gap, provided we don’t waste the opportunity.

⚽ You have read the latest installment of On Soccer with Kevin Baxter. The weekly column takes you behind the scenes and shines a spotlight on unique stories. Listen to Baxter on this week’s episode of the “Corner of the Galaxy” podcast.

Since the start of President Trump’s second term, the Department of Homeland Security’s social media team has published a stream of content worthy of a meme-slinging basement dweller on 4chan.

Grainy, distorted mug shots of immigrants. Links to butt-kissing Fox News stories about MAGA anything. Whiny slams against politicians who call out la migra for treating the Constitution like a pee pad. Paeans to “heritage” and “homeland” worthy of Goebbels. A Thomas Kinkade painting of 1950s-era white picket fence suburbia straight out of “Leave It to Beaver,” with the caption “Protect the Homeland.”

All of this is gag-inducing, but it has a purpose — it’s revealing the racist id of this administration in real time, in case anyone was still doubtful.

In June, DHS shared a poster, originally created by the white-power scene, of a grim-faced Uncle Sam urging Americans to “report all foreign invaders” by calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On July 14, the DHS X account featured a painting of a young white couple cradling a baby in a covered wagon on the Great Plains with the caption, “Remember your Homeland’s Heritage.”

When my colleague Hailey Branson-Potts asked about the pioneer painting and the Trump administration’s trollish social media strategy, a White House spokesperson asked her to “explain how deporting illegal aliens is racist,” adding that haters should “stay mad.”

Now, behold the latest DHS salvo: a July 23 X post of a 19th century painting by John Gast titled “American Progress.”

A blond white woman robed in — yep — white, with a gold star just above her forehead, floats in the center. She holds a book in her right hand and a loop of telegraph wire that her left hand trails across poles. Below her on the right side are miners, hunters, farmers, loggers, a stagecoach and trains. They rush westward, illuminated by puffy clouds and the soft glow of dawn.

The angelic woman is Columbia, the historic female personification of the United States. She seems to be guiding everyone forward, toward Native Americans — bare breasted women, headdress-bedecked warriors — who are fleeing in terror along with a herd of bison and a bear with its mouth agape. It’s too late, though: Covered wagon trains and a teamster wielding a whip have already encroached on their land.

The white settlers are literally in the light-bathed side of the painting, while the Native Americans are shrouded in the dusky, murky side.

It ain’t subtle, folks!

“A Heritage to be proud of, a Homeland worth Defending,” DHS wrote as a caption for “American Progress” — a mantra you may soon find printed on the $20 bill, the way this administration is going.

Gast finished his painting in 1872, when the U.S. was in the last stages of conquest. The Civil War was done. White Americans were moving into the Southwest in large numbers, dispossessing the Mexican Americans who had been there for generations through the courts, squatting or outright murder. The Army was ramping up to defeat Native Americans once and for all. In the eyes of politicians, a new menace was emerging from the Pacific: mass Asian migration, especially Chinese.

Scholars have long interpreted Gast’s infamous work as an allegory about Manifest Destiny — that the U.S. had a God-given right to seize as much of the American continent as it could. John L. O’Sullivan, the newspaperman who coined the term in 1845, openly tied this country’s expansion to white supremacy, expressing the hope that pushing Black people into Latin America, a region “already of mixed and confused blood,” would lead to “the ultimate disappearance of the negro race from our borders.”

O’Sullivan also salivated at the idea of California leaving “imbecile and distracted” Mexico and joining the U.S., adding, “The Anglo-Saxon foot is already on its borders. Already the advance guard of the irresistible army of Anglo-Saxon emigration has begun to pour down upon it, armed with the plough and the rifle.”

This is the heritage the Trump administration thinks is worth promoting.

Vice President JD Vance, center, speaks next to officials including, from left to right, HUD Regional Administrator William Spencer, U.S. Atty. for the Central District of California Bill Essayli, FBI Los Angeles Asst. Director Akil Davis, U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino and ICE Field Office Director Ernie Santacruz at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles in June.

(Jae C. Hong / AP)

Administration officials act shocked and offended when critics accuse them of racism, but the Trump base knows exactly what’s going on.

“This is our country, and we can’t let the radical left make us ashamed of our heritage,” one X user commented on the “American Progress” post. “Manifest Destiny was an amazing thing!”

“It’s time to re-conquer the land,” another wrote.

DHS seems to be vibing with the Heritage American movement, now bleeding into the conservative mainstream from its far-right beginnings. Its adherents maintain that Americans whose ancestors have been here for generations are more deserving of this nation’s riches than those whose families came over within living memory. Our values, proponents say, shouldn’t be based on antiquated concepts like liberty and equality but rather, the customs and traditions established by Anglo Protestants before mass immigration forever changed this country’s demographics.

In other words, if you’re white, you’re all right. If you’re brown or anything else, you’re probably not down.

Our own vice president, JD Vance, is espousing this pendejada. In a speech to the Claremont Institute earlier this month, Vance outlined his vision of what an American is.

“America is not just an idea,” Vance told the crowd. “We’re a particular place, with a particular people, and a particular set of beliefs and way of life.”

Weird — I learned in high school that people come here not because of how Americans live, but because they have the freedom to live however they want.

“If you stop importing millions of foreigners,” the vice president continued, “you allow social cohesion to form naturally.”

All those Southern and Eastern Europeans who came at the turn of the 20th century seem to have assimilated just fine, even as Appalachia’s Scots-Irish — Vance’s claimed ethnic affiliation — are, by his own admission, still a tribe apart after centuries of living here.

Trump, Vance added, is “ensur[ing] that the people we serve have a better life in the country their grandparents built.” I guess that excludes me, since my Mexican grandparents settled here in the autumn of their lives.

The irony of elevating so-called Heritage Americans is that many in Trumpworld would seem to be excluded.

First Lady Melania Trump was born in what’s now Slovenia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is the child of Cuban immigrants. Vance’s wife’s parents came here from India. The Jewish immigrant ancestor of Trump’s deportation mastermind, Stephen Miller, wouldn’t be allowed in these days, after arriving at Ellis Island from czarist Russia with $8 to his name. Even Gast and O’Sullivan wouldn’t count as Heritage Americans by the strictest definition, since the former was Prussian and the latter was the son of Irish and English immigrants.

But that’s the evil genius of MAGA. Trump has proclaimed that he welcomes anyone, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation (except for trans people), into his movement, as long as they’re committed to owning the libs.

Americans are so myopic about their own history, if not downright ignorant, that some minorities think they’re being welcomed into the Heritage Americans fold by Vance and his ilk. No wonder a record number of voters of color, especially Latinos, jumped on the Trump train in 2024.

“American Progress” might as well replace red hats as the ultimate MAGA symbol. To them, it’s not a shameful artifact; it’s a road map for Americans hell-bent on turning back the clock to the era of eradication.

Like I said, not a subtle message at all — if your eyes aren’t shut.

Come Dine With Me has been a firm favourite with British fans for years, but what do Americans make of the show?

In a city renowned for Mardi Gras, gumbo, and extravagant hospitality, I was curious how New Orleans locals would react to a programme that seems completely opposite: Come Dine With Me.

The enduring British cult series features strangers taking turns hosting dinner parties, whilst secretly rating each other in competition for £1,000. So, I gathered three locals – all proud Big Easy dwellers – and pressed play.

First was Brad Collins, a French Market business owner, who confessed he mainly watched for Channel 4 star Dave Lamb’s sharp-tongued commentary.

“That voiceover guy is savage!” he chuckled. “He says what everyone’s thinking, but way more brutal. It’s so British – sounds polite, but they’re low-key scheming and roasting each other behind their backs. Like smiling while they plan your downfall.”

However, not everything went down smoothly for him: “Some of the food? I had no clue what I was looking at. I’m like, is that dessert or dinner? And sometimes I had to put the subtitles on because I didn’t know what they were saying. But I kept watching – it’s addictive,” reports the Express.

Next was mum-of-two Izzy Althans, 36, who works as an advertising operations coordinator. After tuning into the show, she rapidly became captivated.

Izzy revealed: “Come Dine With Me is such a fun way to see British at-home entertaining. In the US, it’s all about a theme – props, photo booths, curated playlists – but the Brits seem more focused on good ingredients and proper courses.

“It felt structured but relaxed, without all the over-the-top effort.”

She was particularly impressed by the presenting approach on the Channel 4 programme, saying: “In America, it’s very ‘make yourself at home’ – we want to have fun as hosts too.

“But the show felt more like, ‘how can I take care of you?’ It’s not that this doesn’t exist in America, but it’s definitely a declining part of our culture.”

Whilst she adored the programme’s British appeal, she also valued its sharp edge.

“They can be so catty towards each other – but in this incredibly emotionless way. I loved it! And I’m obsessed with watching them shop at these cute speciality stores. In short, I think it is a brilliant show that I plan to continue watching it,” she explained.

Finally, there was Jenny Collins, a local teacher, who was captivated by the authentic, unvarnished approach.

She enthused: “After watching a few episodes I realised why I was so drawn to the show. It was the realism; from the appearance of the individuals, to the unedited conversations.”

She also spotted a stark difference in style, saying: “I felt like it was real. In the States, even series that are supposed to be reality TV, are severely edited as not to offend anyone.

“Even the participants who we are expected to see as every day people, go in to make up like celebrities to improve their appearance prior to filming. I felt that I was seeing a true slice of the people who were hosting each meal.”

Despite the cultural differences – Yorkshire puddings, passive-aggressive banter, and sarcastic hosting – the consensus was clear: Come Dine With Me had charmed them.

It appears that all it takes is a bit of sarcasm, some peculiar fish pies, and a ruthless narrator – and even one of the most renowned food cities in America will take a seat at the dinner table.

Come Dine With Me is available to stream on Channel 4

July 18 (UPI) — About 250 Venezuelan migrants deported to El Salvador’s maximum-security prison in March have been sent to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap that included Americans on Friday.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rucio posted on X: “Thanks for @Potus’ leadership, ten Americans who were detained in Venezuela are on their way to freedom.”

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele 10 minutes earlier posted on X: “Today, we have handed over all the Venezuelan nationals detained in our country, accused of being part of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. As was offered to the Venezuelan regime back in April, we carried out this exchange in return for a considerable number of Venezuelan political prisoners, people that regime had kept in its prisons for years, as well as all the American citizens it was holding as hostages.”

The post included video of deportees boarding a plane.

“These individuals are now en route to El Salvador, where they will make a brief stop before continuing their journey home,” Bukele said.

The freed Americans include former Navy SEAL Wilbert Joseph Castaneda, who was detained last year while on personnel travel, three sources told CBS News.

“We have prayed for this day for almost a year. My brother is an innocent man who was used as a political pawn by the Maduro regime,” Castaneda’s family said in a statement.

He had suffered several traumatic brain injuries during his 18 years in the Navy and his decision-making was affected, his family said.

The State Department warned Americans not to travel to Venezuela.

The U.S. Embassy in Venezuela posted a photo of the freed Americans and U.S. diplomat John McNamara.

The Venezuelan government also released several dozen people described as Venezuelan political prisoners and detainees, a senior administration official told CBS News.

The flight, which originated from Texas, included several children, Diosdado Cabello, Venezuela’s minister of Interior, Justice and Peace, said in televised remarks.

“We will keep demanding the return of all the Venezuelans kidnapped by the government of the United States, kidnapped by the government of El Salvador,” he said. “All of them, we demand that they return them to our country. To their home country.”

Family members told CNN they had been told to gather for an emergency meeting in Venezuela ahead of the release.

The Trump administration made a deal with Bukele to send the deported migrants to CECOT prison as part of a $6 million deal.

Bukele said there were “months of negotiations with a tyrannical regime that had long refused to release one of its most valuable bargaining chips: its hostages.

“However, thanks to the tireless efforts of many officials from both the United States and El Salvador, and above all, thanks to Almighty God, it was achieved.”

Rubio also congratulated those involved in the negotiations: “I want to thank my team at the @StateDept & especially President @nayibbukele for helping secure an agreement for the release of all of our American detainees, plus the release of Venezuelan political prisoners.”

In March, the CECOT detainees were sent under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which is rarely deployed and used typically during wartime.

The Trump administration declared Trend de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, an invading force.

Family members have said the detainees were denied due process and are not members of the gang.

Kilmer Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man living legally in the United States, was mistakenly deported from Baltimore to the prison without due process. The Trump administration acknowledged the mistake in a legal filing though they still allege he is a member of the MS-13 gang.

He was initially at the prison but went to another one in the county.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the U.S. He was sent in June to face federal smuggling charges in Tennesse, which he denies.

An international deal has been struck that has allowed Venezuelans deported from the United States and imprisoned in El Salvador to return to their home country, in exchange for the release of American citizens and political prisoners held in Venezuela.

On Friday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that 10 Americans had been released as part of the deal.

“Thanks to @POTUS’s [the president of the United States’] leadership, ten Americans who were detained in Venezuela are on their way to freedom,” Rubio wrote on social media.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele also celebrated the deal, saying that all of the Venezuelan deportees detained in his country have been “handed over”.

“We carried out this exchange in return for a considerable number of Venezuelan political prisoners, people that regime had kept in its prisons for years, as well as all the American citizens it was holding as hostages,” Bukele, a US ally, wrote in a statement on social media.

“These individuals are now en route to El Salvador, where they will make a brief stop before continuing their journey home.”

Bukele has previously indicated he would be open to a detainee swap to release political prisoners in Venezuela. He and US President Donald Trump have long been critics of their Venezuelan counterpart, Nicolas Maduro, a socialist who has led Venezuela since 2013.

“This operation is the result of months of negotiations with a tyrannical regime that had long refused to release one of its most valuable bargaining chips: its hostages,” Bukele added.

The Venezuelan government confirmed it had received 252 citizens deported from the US and held in El Salvador.

In addition, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello told the media that seven children separated from their parents during deportations had also been sent from the US to Venezuela.

Friday’s deal is the latest example of the complex, international negotiations underpinning President Donald Trump’s push for mass deportation in the US.

Such a deal has long been rumoured between the three countries.

But the arrangement raises questions about how Trump’s mass deportation push might be used as leverage for other foreign policy priorities. It has also reignited scrutiny about the treatment of individuals deported from the US to third-party countries they have no relation to.

A controversial deportation

Venezuela has protested the deportation of its citizens from the US to El Salvador, where more than 200 people were sent to a maximum-security prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT) in March.

To facilitate that transfer, President Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — a wartime law only used three times prior — to allow for the swift removal of foreign nationals.

The US leader argued that undocumented migration into the US constituted an “invasion” of criminals from outside countries.

His use of that law, however, has faced ongoing legal challenges about its constitutionality.

Critics also have pointed out that El Salvador has faced criticism for alleged human rights abuses in its prisons, including beatings, torture and sleep deprivation.

The CECOT prison is part of Bukele’s own efforts at mass incarceration. It opened in 2023 with space to hold up to 40,000 people.

Trump argued that deporting the 200-plus Venezuelans was an urgent matter because they belonged to gangs like Tren de Aragua. Bukele echoed that accusation on Friday, saying that all the Venezuelan deportees were “accused of being part of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua”.

But critics point out that some of the men had no criminal record whatsoever.

Lawyers representing some of the deported Venezuelans have since issued complaints alleging that their clients were targeted based on their clothing choices or tattoos, which US immigration officials then used to falsely tie them to gangs.

Third-party deportations

The Trump administration has also maintained that deportations to third-party countries like El Salvador are necessary for immigrants whose home countries will not accept them.

Venezuela has, in the past, refused to accept deportees from the US. Maduro and Trump have had a notoriously rocky relationship. In 2020, Trump even placed a $15m bounty for information that could lead to Maduro’s arrest.

But rather than return to the “maximum pressure” campaign that defined his first term as president, Trump has instead sought negotiations with the Venezuelan government during his second term.

In response, the Maduro government has signalled that it is willing to accept Venezuelan deportees from the US.

For example, it hosted US special envoy Richard Grenell in Caracas in late January, a trip that resulted in the release of six Americans held in Venezuela. The Maduro administration also released a detained US Air Force veteran in May, following another meeting with Grenell.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that Grenell’s mission was to ensure “all US detainees in Venezuela are returned home”. It is unclear how many remain in the country.

The US government, however, continues to deny the legitimacy of Maduro’s presidency. Maduro’s contested election to a third term in 2024 — marred by allegations of fraud — has further weakened his standing on the world stage.

Controversies over mass deportation

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has contended with controversies of its own. Last week, The New York Times reported that the Trump White House had “botched” the agreement to free Americans in Venezuela, after Grenell and Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed rival deals.

The Times said that Rubio had proposed a trade: American prisoners for the Venezuelans held in El Salvador. But Grenell had offered different terms that would allow Venezuela to continue its trade relationship with the oil giant Chevron, a major boon for its beleaguered economy.

The result was reportedly confusion and uncertainty.

Furthermore, the Trump administration has faced scrutiny at home for its apparent unwillingness to repatriate immigrants who may have been unjustly deported.

In June, District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to ensure the Venezuelan men held in El Salvador received due process in the US. In his decision, Boasberg pointed out that their swift removal in March prevented them from contesting both their deportations and the allegations that they were gang members.

That court order, however, has been put on hold by a federal appeals court in Washington.

Friday’s deal also raises questions about previous Trump administration claims that it was unable to release the deported men from the CECOT prison. Trump officials have long argued that, while in El Salvador, the deportees lie beyond the reach of the US government.

El Salvador’s President Bukele has also claimed he had no power to allow the men’s return. In an Oval Office appearance in April, Bukele spoke to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man briefly held in CECOT after he was wrongfully deported in March.

“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele told a reporter.

Media reports indicate that El Salvador received $6m in exchange for holding people deported from the US.

Washington, DC – The family of Sayfollah Musallet, the United States citizen who was beaten to death by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank last week, is calling for justice.

Musallet’s relatives want Washington to launch its own investigation into the incident to ensure accountability.

The Florida-born 20-year-old is the ninth US citizen to be killed by Israeli settlers or soldiers since 2022. None of the previous cases have led to criminal charges or US sanctions against the perpetrators.

That lack of response is what advocates call a “pattern of impunity”, wherein Washington demands a probe without placing any significant pressure on Israel to produce results.

In Musallet’s case, the administration of President Donald Trump urged Israel to “aggressively” investigate the killing.

“There must be accountability for this criminal and terrorist act,” Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, said in a statement on Tuesday.

It is not clear if the US has taken any further actions to seek justice in the aftermath of the fatal beating.

Critics say the “pattern of impunity” stems in part from the historically close bonds between the US and Israel. Successive presidential administrations in the US have affirmed their “unwavering” support for Israel, and the US provides Israel with billions of dollars in military aid annually.

Here, Al Jazeera looks at who the eight other victims were, how the US has responded to their killing and where their cases stand.

Omar Assad

Assad, a 78-year-old Palestinian American, was driving home in the occupied West Bank after visiting friends on January 12, 2022, when Israeli soldiers stopped him at a checkpoint.

According to the autopsy report and his family’s account, the troops dragged Assad out of his car and then handcuffed, gagged and blindfolded him, leaving him to die at a cold construction site.

The administration of then-President Joe Biden called on Israel to launch a criminal investigation into the incident.

But Assad’s relatives and lawmakers from his home state of Milwaukee wanted Washington to conduct its own probe – a demand that never materialised.

As is often the case, Israel’s investigation into its own soldiers’ conduct did not lead to any criminal charges.

In 2023, the Israeli army said that it found no “causal link” between the way its soldiers treated Assad and his death.

The Biden administration also declined to apply sanctions under US law to the Israeli unit that killed Assad: the Netzah Yehuda, a battalion notorious for its abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Last year, the US Department of State announced that the battalion will still be eligible for US aid under the Leahy Law, which prohibits military assistance for security units involved in human rights violations.

Shireen Abu Akleh

Abu Akleh, a veteran Al Jazeera reporter, was fatally shot by Israeli forces during a raid in Jenin in the occupied West Bank on May 11, 2022.

Owing to her status as one of the most celebrated journalists in the Middle East, her killing sparked international outrage from rights groups and press freedom advocates.

Despite the global attention, Israeli forces attacked her funeral in Jerusalem, beating the pallbearers carrying her coffin with batons.

Israel initially denied killing Abu Akleh, 51, falsely claiming that the reporter was shot by armed Palestinians.

Months later, after multiple visual investigations showed that Israeli soldiers targeted Abu Akleh, Israel acknowledged that its forces likely killed the reporter, dismissing the incident as an accident.

The Biden administration faced waves of pleas by legislators and rights groups to launch its own investigation into the killing, but it resisted the calls, arguing that Israel is capable of investigating itself.

In November 2022, Israeli media reports claimed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating the shooting of Abu Akleh, but the US Department of Justice never confirmed the probe.

More than three years after Abu Akleh’s killing, her family and supporters say justice in her case has not been served.

Tawfiq Ajaq

Born in Louisiana, Ajaq was 17 when he visited the occupied West Bank to see his relatives last year.

On January 19, 2024, he was driving a pick-up truck with his friends when Israelis sprayed the vehicle with bullets and killed him.

Mohammed Salameh, who witnessed and survived the attack, said the shooting was unprovoked.

While it is not clear which individual shot Ajaq, Israel said the incident involved “an off-duty law enforcement officer, a soldier and a civilian” and was sparked by “rock-throwing activities” – a claim that Salameh has denied.

The US State Department called for an “urgent investigation to determine the circumstance” of the incident.

But more than 19 months after the shooting, Israel has not publicly released any findings or charged any suspect in the shooting.

“We feel abandoned by our government,” Ajaq’s uncle, Mohammad Abdeljabbar, told Al Jazeera last year.

Mohammad Khdour

Khdour was also 17 when he was killed under almost identical circumstances to Ajaq just weeks later.

According to his cousin Malek Mansour, who witnessed the attack, an unidentified assailant opened fire at their car in the occupied West Bank from a vehicle with an Israeli number plate.

Mansour said the attack was unprovoked. Khdour died on February 10, 2024.

The two had been eating cookies and taking selfies moments before the shooting.

Once again, Washington called for a probe.

“There needs to be an investigation. We need to get the facts. And if appropriate, there needs to be accountability,” then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters at that time.

But advocates say that, while normally Israel launches sham investigations into such incidents, Israeli authorities have not acknowledged Khdour’s killing at all.

The Israeli military and police told the publication Haaretz last year that they are not familiar with the case.

Jacob Flickinger

An Israeli air strike targeted a World Central Kitchen (WCK) vehicle in Gaza on April 1, 2024, killing seven aid workers, sparking anger and condemnation across the world.

Among the victims was Flickinger, a 33-year-old US-Canadian dual citizen.

Biden called for a “swift” Israeli investigation into the attack, which he said “must bring accountability”.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the blast a “tragic accident”.

The Israeli military said the commander who ordered the strike had “mistakenly assumed” that gunmen in the area were in the aid vehicle.

It added that the commander did not identify the car as associated with World Central Kitchen, a well-known hunger relief initiative founded by celebrity chef Jose Andres.

A World Central Kitchen logo was displayed prominently on the top of the vehicle before the attack.

Israel said it dismissed two commanders over the incident, but there were no criminal charges.

Since then, Israel has killed hundreds of aid workers in Gaza, including Palestinian staff members from World Central Kitchen.

Last year, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza as well as other alleged war crimes.

Aysenur Ezgi Eygi

Eygi, born in Washington state, was participating in a protest against an illegal settler outpost in the West Bank on September 6, 2024, when an Israeli soldier shot her in the head.

She was 26.

While there were reports of a scuffle during a crackdown on the demonstration by Israeli forces, several witnesses have said that Eygi was shot during a calm period after the chaos had ended.

The State Department called on Israel to “quickly and robustly” investigate Eygi’s killing, but it ruled out conducting its own probe.

Biden dismissed her death as an “accident”, but Blinken condemned it as “unprovoked and unjustified”.

On the same day that Eygi was fatally shot by Israel, the US Justice Department ​filed charges against Hamas leaders after the killing of US-Israeli captive Hersh Goldberg-Polin in Gaza.

The Israeli military said its soldiers likely killed Eygi “indirectly and unintentionally” – a conclusion that her family called offensive, stressing that she was targeted by a sniper.

“The disregard shown for human life in the inquiry is appalling,” the family said in a statement.

Trump ally Randy Fine, now a Congress member, celebrated the killing of Eygi. “One less #MuslimTerrorist,” he wrote in a social media post, referring to the shooting.

Kamel Jawad

When Jawad, a celebrated leader in the Lebanese American community in Michigan, was killed by an Israeli air strike in south Lebanon on October 1 of last year, the Biden administration initially denied he was a US citizen.

Washington later acknowledged that Jawad was American, expressing “alarm” over his killing.

“As we have noted repeatedly, it is a moral and strategic imperative that Israel take all feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm. Any loss of civilian life is a tragedy,” the US State Department said at that time.

Israel has not commented publicly on the strike that killed Jawad.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) slammed the Biden administration’s handling of the case, including the US government’s initial “smug” response.

“It’s as if they’re intentionally trying to see our people killed, intentionally downplaying us and dehumanising us,” ADC executive director Abed Ayoub told Al Jazeera last year.

Amer Rabee

On April 6, Israeli forces in the West Bank fatally shot 14-year-old Rabee, a New Jersey native, and called him a “terrorist”. Two of his friends were also injured in the attack.

While the Israeli military accused Rabee and his friends of throwing rocks at Israeli vehicles, the slain teenager’s family insisted that he was picking almonds on the side of the road.

The Trump administration failed to pursue accountability in the case or even publicly press for further details about the incident.

Instead, the State Department cited the Israeli account about the 14-year-old’s killing.

“We offer our sincerest condolences to the family on their loss,” the State Department said at that time. “We acknowledge the [Israeli military’s] initial statement that expressed that this incident occurred during a counter-terrorism operation.”

ROUBAIX, France — As statements go, it’s a big one.

A towering mural in France of the Statue of Liberty covering her eyes is racking up millions of views online with its swipe at President Trump’s immigration and deportation policies.

Amsterdam-based street artist Judith de Leeuw described her giant work in the northern French town of Roubaix, which has a large immigrant community, as “a quiet reminder of what freedom should be.”

She said “freedom feels out of reach” for migrants and “those pushed to the margins, silenced, or unseen.”

“I painted her covering her eyes because the weight of the world has become too heavy to witness. What was once a shining symbol of liberty now carries the sorrow of lost meaning,” de Leeuw wrote in a July 4 post on Facebook, when Americans were celebrating Independence Day.

Her depiction of the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French people in the late 1800s, has inspired some sharp criticism.

Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican lawmaker from Tennessee, wrote in a post on X that the work “disgusts me.” He said he had an uncle who fought and died in France, where U.S. forces saw combat in both World War I and World War II.

In an interview with the Associated Press, de Leeuw was unapologetic.

“I’m not offended to be hated by the Donald Trump movement. I am not sorry. This is the right thing to do,” she said.

The town stood by the work, with its deputy mayor in charge of cultural affairs, Frédéric Lefebvre, telling broadcaster France 3 that “it’s a very strong and powerful political message.”

Since returning to the White House amid anti-immigration sentiment, Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign that has pushed the limits of executive power and clashed with federal judges trying to restrain him. People from various countries have been deported to remote and unrelated places like South Sudan and the small African nation of Eswatini.

Polling by Gallup released last week showed an increasing number of Americans who said immigration is a “good thing” and decreasing support for the type of mass deportations Trump has championed since before he was elected.

The mural in Roubaix is part of an urban street culture festival backed by the town. Roubaix is one of the poorest towns in France. It was economically devastated by the collapse since the 1970s of its once-flourishing textile industry that used to attract migrant workers from elsewhere in Europe, north Africa and beyond.

Plazy writes for the Associated Press. AP journalists Ahmad Seir in Amsterdam and John Leicester in Paris contributed to this report.