Category: Quick Analysis

The end of DEI initiatives in the federal government is not popular with those who supported these policies. “With these actions,” the American Civil Liberties Union intones, “the [Trump} administration is not only undoing decades of federal anti-discrimination policy, spanning Democratic and Republican presidential administrations alike, but also marshalling federal enforcement agencies to bully both private and government entities into abandoning legal efforts to promote equity and remedy systemic discrimination. Trump’s executive orders undermine obligations dating back to the Johnson administration that firms doing business with the U.S. government and receiving billions in public dollars are held to the highest standards in remedying and preventing bias.” 

Of course, no such bullying of private entities was ever necessary – the marketplace dictates corporate policy far more effectively than the government ever could. According to NPR, “President Trump is ending diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal government. But big companies have already been rolling back their DEI promises, for business as well as political reasons…Walmart recently said it won’t renew the funding for the racial equity center it launched in 2020. It joins McDonald’s, Amazon, Facebook, and many others who are ending some diversity programs. A Walmart spokesperson tells NPR that the company is working to make all employees successful. The other companies have said similar things…[b]ack in 2020, it was trendy for big companies to pledge to help workers and help the planet while still making more money. But they couldn’t always follow through…[i]t is always going to be difficult if you are a for-profit publicly traded company to have your leader talk about anything other than maximizing profits…” 

But whether or not it was profitable for a corporation to follow DEI policies is a separate issue from whether or not the federal government may legally pursue such a course of action.  Again quoting from our book, Not Wasting a Crisis; “[under] the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution…the Federal government has the same obligation to provide ‘equal’ – not ‘equitable’ – protection to all as do the States…[d]espite centuries of American jurisprudence ‘prohibiting governmental denial of equal protection,’ and insuring equality before the law for all persons, regardless of race, gender or religion, Joe Biden and his minions continue[d] to ignore the U.S. Constitution and deny equal protection to many people on the very basis of race, gender and religion…governmental [agencies were] tasked with forcing federal agencies to adopt equity principles [in an effort] to determine who [would] receive the advantages of Equity – and who [would] not.”

Clearly, this was a blatantly unconstitutional path for the United States government to follow.  But thanks to the election of a President who has both a respect for the rule of law and a proper reading of the US Constitution, these illegal DEI policies have been halted.

But have they?  Has the snake’s head been cut off – or is that snake actually a hydra?

According to USA Today, “[t]he acting secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs demanded that his staff report efforts to disguise diversity, equity and inclusion programs targeted for termination by the Trump administration, according to an email obtained by USA TODAY. Acting Veterans Affairs secretary Todd Hunter’s email told his employees that he was ‘aware of efforts by some in government to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language’…[e]mails with nearly identical language were sent to employees at other agencies, including the Social Security Administration, according to versions USA TODAY has reviewed.” 

This effort to uproot attempts to disguise DEI programs is not mere paranoia.  As revealed by The Daily Mail, “[t]he Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives appeared to try and avoid Donald Trump’s anti-DEI executive order by switching the job title of its Chief Diversity Officer…Trump’s administration ordered federal agencies to place all Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) hires on paid leave pending review and warned authorities not to use ‘coded or imprecise language’ to circumvent the move. But within a day of the order being announced, eagle-eyed online sleuths noticed the ATF’s Chief Diversity Officer Lisa T. Boykin had a new job title, appearing to have been updated to ‘Senior Executive.'” 

Meanwhile, “[i]n November, the organization Judicial Watch sued the Department of Defense in a case related to West Point’s changing the name of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion office to the ‘Office of Engagement and Retention.’ Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said at the time that ‘[i]t seems games are afoot at West Point to disguise its radical DEI agenda.'”  However, as reported by Campus Reform, in January of 2025 “[t]he United States Military Academy at West Point…appears to have ended its ‘Diversity and Inclusion Studies’ minor…side-by-side pictures of the West Point website [show] that the DEI minor is no longer present on the academy’s ‘Majors and Minors’ page.” 

There is probably no more difficult a task than to halt, let alone reverse, the existence of a bureaucracy.  Once in place, an initiative such as DEI will be perpetuated by its supporters and adherents. “[O]ne organizational feature that has proved uncommonly resistant to evolutionary pressures is bureaucracy,” writes Todd Jick, Senior Lecturer at the Columbia Business School. “Notwithstanding the many changes today’s organizations face in their competitive env ironment, it seems bureaucracy is binding – and organizations tend to stick to it, for better or worse.”    This is especially true when those bureaucrats are ideologues, convinced of the absolute righteousness of their positions.

Predictably, some members of the DEI establishment have begun to fight back. Time reports that “[a] slew of nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration on Wednesday in response to its Executive Orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The case was filed by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Lambda Legal on behalf of the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago. The lawsuit…alleges that the Trump Administration is infringing on the organizations’ right to free speech and due process by forcing said organizations to adopt the Trump Administration’s view regarding DEI…plaintiffs argue that the federal funding they rely on to engage with underserved communities and provide social and health services has been compromised.” 

Of course, this lawsuit by a group of NGOs completely ignores the fact that government funding of any initiative is at the discretion of the government, and that the acceptance of federal money entails the acceptance of federal rules.  Ultimately, such a lawsuit is doomed to failure – if not in the lower courts, then ultimately, upon appellate review.

One federal judge has issued an injunction against the firing of 11 CIA officers who were involved in DEI programs at the Agency.  However, the officers did not seek to halt the dismantling of the program, or invalidate the President’s Executive Order.  Instead, according to Fox News, “[f]ormer CIA officer Kevin Carroll, a lawyer representing the CIA employees [noted] that the 11 officers were on temporary assignments relating to DEI initiatives and that none of them had received poor performance reviews…’These people are being fired just because of an assumption that’s been made that they are leftists,’ Carroll said in a statement.” 

In other words, don’t fire us – we had no choice but to do the job we were assigned.  This is a position that may ultimately prove successful, but will need to be established on a case by case basis.

There will, of course, be more lawsuits, injunctions and other developments before DEI is eradicated from the federal government.  But we believe the Trump Administration is off to a good start, and is on firm legal footing in removing an illegal and unconstitutional initiative from practice and enforcement by the United States government.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Here at usagovpolicy.com, and in the pages of our book, Not Wasting a Crisis, the Lawless Biden Administration, we have detailed the concerted and sustained efforts made by the 46th President (or in any case, the extensive exertions made by members of his Administration) to permanently enshrine the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the federal government.

On the day of his Inauguration in 2020, Former President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” which mandated that “the policy of my Administration [is to] pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all…[a]ffirmatively advancing equity…is the responsibility of the whole of our government.”

This order was followed by two more: Executive Order 14035, which provided for “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce,” and Executive Order 14091,“Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” 

With these Orders, as we noted in Chapter 16 of Not Wasting a Crisis, “[a] new level of bureaucracy [was] created to ensure that it is a function of the federal government to violate the Equal Protection of the law guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  Every major federal department must use all of their power and authority to ensure that services are provided on the basis of “equity,” not “equality.”

We further asked this question, “How can this be legal?” and provided this answer; “it’s not.  These Executive Orders are utterly and completely unconstitutional, and a blatant violation of the principle upon which this nation was built and stands – equal protection for all.”

Once more, we must humbly admit that we were right.

On the day of his Inauguration, President Donald Trump put an end to this illegal system with his Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences.”   “The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government,” the Order states, “in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.  This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office…[t]hat ends today.  Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.”

Pursuant to this Order, “[t]he Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear…Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI and DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements.”

Removing DEI initiatives from government offices and programs has been hailed by those who warned of the dangers of these programs for years. “Hiding behind the smokescreen of ‘fairness,'” writes George Leef, the director of editorial content at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, “leftists have for decades been shoving their collectivist notions down the throats of American students. It took quite a long time for the counterattack to get started, but it seems that DEI is in full retreat.” Meanwhile, Corey DeAngelis of the American Culture Project and Adam Guillette, President of Accuracy in Media, state that “[o]n his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end ‘radical and wasteful government DEI programs’ in federal agencies.  Trump made the right call. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said he dreamed people would ‘not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ DEI ideology is a slap in the face to MLK Jr.’s civil rights agenda to treat everyone equally, regardless of the color of their skin.” 

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

A new U.S. Air Force report to Congress outlines the challenges and goals up to the year 2050 of both that service and its Space Command,

The document notes that “A great deal of change can occur in 25 years. There is enormous uncertainty about the events that will transpire over the next 25 years, about the technologies that will be available by then, and about the threats to national security that will exist.  Threats will include both conventional and nuclear adversaries with the capacity and the will to challenge the interests, the values, and even the existence of the United States and its allies.”

In 2050, the document discloses, “unless there is a fundamental change in the direction of international affairs, the United States will be facing a peer competitor in the Pacific and a near peer competitor in Europe. By that time, existing trends in technology maturation will have moved forward considerably, and new trends will have become evident. China is doing everything it can to exploit the opportunities that emerging technologies are providing to field forces designed to defeat the United States in the Western Pacific, especially in space and in the air. By 2050, if not well before, the Air Force and Space Force will not be competitive unless we make substantial improvements in how these forces are equipped, trained, and operated. We can no longer acquire new systems and assume they will be dominant for decades …the ability of the Air Force and Space Force to support that strategy is at risk if we do not have the necessary resources and move aggressively in the direction described in this report.

“China will remain the pacing challenge to the United States and to democratic powers in general, especially, but not solely, in the Indo-Pacific region. Recognizing this reality, the [Air Force]  has spent considerable effort in reoptimizing the Department for great power competition. These efforts were designed to create an enterprise-wide competitive ecosystem, postured for long-term strategic competition. They included: establishing a Space Force Futures Command and an Air Force Integrated Capabilities Command; creating deployable Air Force operational wings; standing up new Air Force acquisition and technology Systems Centers; reshaping the education of Air Force Airmen and Space Force Guardians; creating a core of more technical professionals, including by reestablishing Air Force warrant officers for cyber and information technology; and, in the DAF Secretariat, creating organizations to perform strategic program assessments, guide modernization, and conduct competitive activities. This framework will evolve through 2050 but should not fundamentally change.

The document notes that:

“By 2050 it is all but certain that Xi Jin Ping and Vladimir Putin will be out of power.  There is a wildcard possibility that new leadership will choose fundamentally different directions for China or Russia, but the baseline assumption will be that both states remain  autocratic and consider the United States and other democracies to represent rival powers.  As Secretary of State Antony Blinken has indicated, an alignment that includes China,  Russia, North Korea, and Iran against the democratic powers is a possibility and should be  deterred if possible. Conversely, increasing concerns about China’s aggressive intentions  could stimulate a multi-lateral alliance or alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. If these  developments did occur, they would have impacts on size and distribution of capabilities in  the DAF of 2050, but not on the nature of the Department nor on the types of organizations,  training, and equipment of the Air Force and Space Force.  

“China’s growth will continue, but at a reduced rate as demographics and authoritarian  economic mismanagement influence productivity. China will continue to grow its nuclear  forces to levels comparable to those of the United States and Russia. China will also  continue the expansion and reach of its military and its attempt to influence global events.  China is likely to acquire some additional international basing, but it will avoid the large scale global deployments that characterize the current posture of the United States. The  Taiwan “issue” may or may not be resolved, however, if it has been, other points of friction  between China and neighboring states will still exist. China’s reliance on a combination of  cutting-edge technology, innovative operational concepts, operationalized use of the space  domain, emphasis on information dominance, and, increasingly, long-range precision  weapons of all types will continue.  

“Russia will remain hostile, but its ambitions will be limited by the weakness of its  economy. If clean energy technology matures before 2050, Russia’s dependence on  extractive fossil fuel exports will be a limiting factor in its ambitions. Russia and China are  likely to remain at least opportunistically aligned, with Russia as the weak partner in the  relationship. Russia will continue its high reliance on nuclear weapons for security against  the West and will field some combination of the exotic weapons it has in development today,  even potentially stationing nuclear anti-satellite weapons in space. Any stationing of nuclear  weapons in space would be highly destabilizing; this is not a baseline assumption for this  report, but it is a real possibility. Russia will also attempt to rebuild its conventional forces  following the termination of the Ukraine war, but it will not be able to rival the conventional  forces available to NATO due to its economic constraints.  

“A mutual defense pact between Russia and China is possible but is not considered a baseline assumption. Neither Russia nor China will want to be obligated to enter a conflict  the other initiates. 

“Arms control agreements will not limit the nuclear or conventional forces of the major powers. Wildcards are plausible. For example, some set of events, such as a nuclear detonation or regional exchange, may motivate a renewed impetus for arms control, but the difficulty in reaching a three-party agreement and China’s lack of interest in arms control make it unlikely. If there is a renewed interest in arms control, it will not lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons. The “nuclear club” will not shrink, and there is a good chance that there will be additional members by 2050, motivated by local threats and the perception that nuclear weapons provide deterrents against others who have joined the  nuclear club. If the perceived value and reliability of the nuclear security umbrella provided by the United States to our allies diminishes, proliferation will be more likely to occur. 

Photo: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket booster carrying a payload of two WorldView Legion satellites launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., May 2, 2024. This launch marked a collaboration between the U.S. Space Forces – Space and Maxar Technologies, a commercial space company. This mission was supported by S4S’s CIC program, which fosters collaboration between the DoD and commercial space companies to deliver critical space capabilities. (U.S. Space Force photo by SrA. Joshua Leroi)

In October of last year, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) notified the then-director of USAID by letter that “some of the $1 billion in American taxpayer money [provided for humanitarian aid in Gaza] was likely diverted to Hamas…Cotton wrote that…USAID ‘announced approximately $336 million in additional humanitarian funding for Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. On the same day, the United Nations acknowledged that Fateh al-Sharif, a Hamas leader in Lebanon killed in an Israeli airstrike, was employed by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. UNRWA, a major USAID partner before October 7, remains a chief conduit for U.N. humanitarian assistance in Gaza despite extensive evidence of its ties to Hamas.'”  

With a history like that, is it any wonder that USAID became a target of the Department of Government Efficiency?

“A review of USAID’s recent history shows that it repeatedly has been accused of financial mismanagement and corruption long before Donald Trump’s second administration, Fox News Digital found…Tech billionaire and DOGE Chair Elon Musk…announced in an audio-only message on X…that ‘we’re in the process’ of ‘shutting down USAID’ and that Trump reportedly agreed to shutter the agency…hundreds of USAID employees reported they were locked out of the agency’s computer system and that its headquarters in Washington, D.C., was closed.” 

These efforts to shutter USAID are taken pursuant to the President’s Executive Order “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which states that “[i]t is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”  In furtherance of that goal, “[a]ll department and agency heads with responsibility for United States foreign development assistance programs shall immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and contractors pending reviews of such programs for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy, to be conducted within 90 days of this order.” 

In furtherance of this Executive Order, “[o]n Monday, February 3, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he would serve as the Acting Administrator of the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID). Also on February 3, USAID staff were directed not to report to the agency’s Washington, DC, headquarters.”

While it sounds reasonable to shut down an agency that has been accused of mismanagement for decades, and conduct an audit, Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court of the District of Columbia did not wholly agree.  In response to a lawsuit filed by several unions representing the locked out USAID workers, Judge Nichols issued a temporary stay of this aspect of President Trump’s Order.  “[T]he Court finds that plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that their members are facing irreparable injury from their placement on administrative leave,” Judge Nichols wrote, “and that more members would face such injury if they were placed on administrative leave tonight.”  

In particular, the Court focused on USAID workers who were being recalled from overseas; “Recalling employees on such short notice disrupts long-settled expectations and makes it nearly impossible for evacuated employees to adequately plan for their return to the United States…Even if a future lawsuit could recoup any financial harms stemming from the expedited evacuations – like the cost of breaking a lease or of abandoning property that could not be sold prior to the move – it surely could not recoup damage done to educational progress, physical safety, and family relations. “

While Judge Nichols prohibited the dismissal of USAID workers, he did not put a stop to the funding freeze. “[P]laintiffs maintained at the TRO hearing that payments on existing USAID grants have been frozen, preventing certain ‘contracting officers’ employed by USAID from using agency funds to fulfill monetary commitments that the agency had already made…Plaintiffs allege that, by some legal mechanism, USAID contracting officers can be held personally liable for existing contractual expenses that USAID is supposed to, but does not, pay. Plaintiffs thus argue that those officers face irreparable harm as a result of the funding freeze because they will be left ‘holding the bag’ when USAID imminently fails to disburse funds. Separately, plaintiffs argue that the general population of USAID employees will be emotionally harmed by the agency’s inability to pay its contractors because they will be stuck ‘watching a slow speed train wreck’ as the agency reneges on its humanitarian commitments.”

In other words, USAID argued that it needed to keep spending the money it had promised to foreign recipients, even while it is alleged that those funds were being diverted, misused and stolen on a large scale.  Further, the inability to continue handing out money to foreign recipients without accountability would make USAID workers feel bad.

Judge Nichols was not persuaded by this ridiculous argument. “Even assuming the funding freeze indeed prevents payments on existing grants in the way plaintiffs claim,” the Court wrote, “the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not demonstrated resulting irreparable harm. Plaintiffs’ claims about the risk of financial exposure for contracting officers are simply too speculative. They have not explained how or why contracting officers would be held personally liable for contracts entered into by USAID, nor have they explained why there would be no recourse after the fact if that did somehow happen…the Court concludes that this is the kind of hypothetical harm insufficient to warrant a [stay].”

Thus, the double edged sword of the law is on full display in Judge Nicholas’s order.  Using the standard analysis of whether an action taken by the government would result in “irreparable harm” to the person seeking the stay, the Court found that summary dismissal of the USAID workers would cause such harm, but calling a halt to funding would not.

The necessity of actually reading the Court’s orders, and not just taking the media’s word regarding what those orders say is also relevant here. The BBC describes Judge Nichols as “sid[ing] with the unions, saying they would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the court did not intervene, while there would be ‘zero harm to the government.'”  Yet, nowhere in their article is the denial of the request to halt the funding freeze even mentioned.

ABC News also fails to mention this partial victory for the Trump Administration, preferring to report only that “U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols – a Trump appointee – issued a temporary restraining order that prevents Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency from placing the employees on administrative leave as had been planned. The judge also ordered the reinstatement of some 500 USAID workers who had already been put on administrative leave and ordered that no USAID employees should be evacuated from their host countries before Feb. 14 at 11:59 p.m…’These actions have generated a global humanitarian crisis by abruptly halting the crucial work of USAID employees, grantees, and contractors. They have cost thousands of American jobs. And they have imperiled U.S. national security interests,’ the lawsuit said.” 

In fact, if you follow the news, it would seem that judges are blocking the President’s Agenda at every opportunity.  But if you read more closely, as in the case of Judge Nicholas’ decision, the truth is often more nuanced. 

The Trump Administration is also experiencing outright victories in the Courts.  As reported by The New York Post, “[a] federal judge on Wednesday declined to pause the Trump administration’s buyout program for government workers, giving President Trump a key win in his push to shrink the size of the federal government. US District Judge George A. O’Toole ruled that the union groups suing to block the so-called ‘Deferred Resignation’ program lacked standing and that his Massachusetts-based court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with the lawsuit. O’Toole, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, temporarily blocked the Office of Personnel Management from moving ahead with the program earlier this week, after unions representing more than 800,000 federal workers charged that that the buyout offers were unlawful. ‘The plaintiffs here are not directly impacted by the directive,’ the judge ruled. ‘Instead, they allege that the directive subjects them to upstream effects including a diversion of resources to answer members’ questions about the directive, a potential loss of membership, and possible reputational harm…[t]he unions do not have the required direct stake in the…Directive, but are challenging a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees,’ O’Toole continued. ‘This is not sufficient.’”  

Note that Judge O’Toole initially issued a stay of the Buyout Plan, but withdrew that stay after further review of the application, a very common procedure.  Remember that the stays being issued are Temporary, and further hearings are pending in the majority of cases.

Thus, we can safely conclude that the Courts remain the primary place where justice can be found.  Judges will not let the President end birthright citizenship, no matter how popular this idea is with the electorate, without the Constitution being obeyed.  At the same time, the Courts will continue to examine these and similar issues on a case by case basis.

Maybe, in some instances, Donald Trump’s agenda will be blocked.  But in others, the President’s actions will be endorsed and implemented.

Patience and trust in the rule of law is necessary now – as is a healthy skepticism of what one reads in the majority of the media covering President Donald Trump’s activities.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Pixabay

There is no doubt that the 2024 election was a historic re shift of our federal government.  Voters endorsed a Republican President, and then gave him Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Yet there is one branch of government that did not change with last year’s ballots – the Courts.

In the past, we have commended the Judicial Branch as providing justice and stability to our nation at a time when progressives sought to fundamentally alter the American way of life.  Our book, Not Wasting a Crisis, the Lawless Biden Administration praises the US Supreme Court in particular for standing against the abuses of our system of government perpetrated by the Biden Administration over the past four years. 

But remember that Lady Justice carries a sword – and that sword is double edged.

As described by The Washington Times, a series of temporary restraining orders have been imposed by the federal courts in response to lawsuits brought by various Democrat aligned interest groups. These include “a preliminary injunction halting the president’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship, several restraining orders preventing him from pausing government assistance grants and contracts, a block on releasing names of FBI agents involved in pursuing cases against the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters, a freeze on plans to put on leave the entire workforce at the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a stay blocking Mr. Trump from finalizing his mass-buyout plan for the federal workforce.” 

Is this judicial interference in the Trump Agenda justified?  Is the President acting beyond his authority in issuing so many Executive Orders?

In the case of the Order reversing birthright citizenship, the answer to both questions is yes.

Under the 47th President’s Executive Order,  “it is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship…when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”  However, that same order quotes from the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  The Order also cites 8 USC 1401, which states that “[t]he following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” 

In light of these clear statements in both the Constitution and federal law, the Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship could not stand. At the end of January, 2025, the District Court of Washington State issued a temporary injunction prohibiting enforcement of this Order since it would “deprive (citizens) of their constitutional right to citizenship.” 

While many Americans may agree with President Trump’s goal of stopping illegal aliens from having “anchor babies” on our soil, his method of effectuating this change through an Executive Order is flawed.  The proper procedure is outlined in Article V of the Constitution;  “[A]n amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention…[a] proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”

Thus, if the President and Congress want to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, they must follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution, and propose an Amendment.

Regarding the stays of other Executive Orders issued by the President, the answers are not as clear.

According to usa.gov, “[t]he U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.”  Yet, in recent days, we have learned that USAID has been engaged in financing much more than these stated objectives.

As reported by Fox News, “USAID, the government agency in charge of distributing tax dollars to foreign aid projects, once again is being hit with allegations and audits exposing how fraud and corruption are undermining its programs…the multiple reports reflect a decades-long problem with how USAID money is administered and, critics say, how little has been done to fix it.”  

Sounds like something you’ve been reading recently in the news, doesn’t it?  Only this quote comes from an article published in 2015.

One investigation described in this article from 10 years ago showed that “millions [were] being stolen and sold on the black market from money meant for malaria drugs in Africa. The malaria initiative was set up to help fight the disease but has been hijacked by organized networks in the region that steal large amounts of the drug and resell it on the street. The U.S. spent $2.5 billion between 2006 and 2012 on the President’s Malaria Initiative…[o]f the drugs sent, more than 20 percent were diverted each year, with a street value of $60 million.”

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth outlined the Department of Defenses’ top priorities. They include modernizing the nuclear triad and building an iron dome for the U.S., referring to the iron dome that defends Israel against aerial threats.

He noted that these and other homeland priorities will be reflected in the fiscal year 2026 defense budget and future defense budgets. 

Hegseth emphasized that in addition to  Europe the Indo-Pacific region is a key concern. The new Defense Secretary has met or will meet with leaders  in Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan. He said the focus there is maintaining a strategic advantage over China. “We want the future of the world to be free. “We’re confronting threats in real time, restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, reestablishing deterrence,”

Hegseth’s priorities were reflected in the Congressional testimony of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command’s most senior leaders in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee  

 Air Force Gen. Gregory M. Guillot told the committee that growing cooperation between our country’s global adversaries, evolving technologies in the hands of our competitors and the ongoing threat of non-state actors continuing to target the homeland all present real-world challenges. He noted that China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are cooperating together to challenge the U.S. 

“While their cooperation does not approach the level of complete integration demonstrated by the United States and Canada, their transfer of weapons, military technology and basing access is a cause for significant concern,” Guillot told the committee.  

He also said that associated risks to North America have continued to grow due to the level of incursions by Russian bomber aircraft into Alaskan and Canadian air defense zones having returned to levels not seen since before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 

” Russian Navy surface and subsurface vessels conducted out-of-area deployments off both U.S. coasts, including in the vicinity of Alaska,” he added. 

On the topic of evolving technologies, Guillot said that rapid technological advancements have forced Northcom and NORAD to hurriedly adjust their defense posture. “Small, uncrewed aircraft systems … proliferate the open market; and in the hands of malign actors, pose a growing threat to safety and security,” Guillot added, giving the example that there were 350 UAS detections over a total 100 different U.S. military installations reported last year.

 He said that roughly just half of U.S. installations fall under U.S. Code Section 130i, meaning they are considered “covered” installations and are allowed to defend themselves from UAS incursions.  

There are currently nine criteria that can qualify a base as being eligible for “covered” status, with nuclear facilities, missile defense bases and test facilities being among them, Guillot explained. 

“My request and proposal would be, as we look at 130i again, … to expand coverage to all military installations and not just those that are covered,” Guillot said, adding that he would like to see the range of self-defense extend beyond installation boundaries so that threats can be dealt with before reaching those boundaries.

Addressing the threat that non-state actors pose to the homeland, Guillot said radical Islamic terrorist groups have rejuvenated and are inspiring lone-wolf attacks such as the New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans last month. 

Guillot also described how Mexico-based, transnational criminal cartels are a threat to U.S. territorial integrity and the safety of U.S. citizens. 

“With that strategic backdrop, homeland defense is our commands’ top priority and essential task, and in mindset and action, nobody waits on NORAD or Northcom,” Guillot said before proceeding to list numerous examples of how both commands have been addressing the challenges he listed. 

Guillot explained that, over the past 12 months, NORAD and Northcom have intercepted joint Chinese and Russian bombers off the coast of Alaska, detected and assessed numerous North Korean missile launches and tracked Russian surface vessels off both coasts.  

He said they have also supported natural disaster victims throughout the country and worked to counter transnational criminal networks at the border through the deployment of troops and “unique military capabilities” such as airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. 

Photo: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in Brussels, Feb. 13, 2025. (DoD)

Who has studied the situation on the ground in Ukraine, along with the history and consequences of modern warfare? Many Americans seem to expect “perfection” in this war. But it doesn’t exist in our corporeal world apart from God. 

To poorly paraphrase a Founding Father, if all men were angels no government would be needed. Flawless government, and a perfect war, simply don’t exist in a realist world. By “realist” I mean that governments employ various types of military power, both hard and soft, to achieve their objectives. 

Today we are faced with that reality in Washington and among the members of our international community. Lately, I’ve been intensely re-reading documents from early American political history. Hence, I ‘ve been thinking about Americans and the world we are leaving our children.

There is no simple solution in Ukraine. What is the best possible choice for the common good, that our political leaders can make, to govern in the imperfect world in which we live? 

Our Founding Fathers worked hard to protect us from ourselves, taking the best knowledge from man’s history and incorporating it into a contract, a set of guidelines, we the people could use to prosper and live free. We’ve done a pretty good job, in a short time, compared to the rest of the world. But that’s part of the problem! We have a Constitution that works but live among nation-states that lack our history and or a similar contract with their citizenry.

If I saw a speeding car cross the median and heading in my direction, my immediate reaction would be to swerve mine to avoid a head on collision. My vehicle might end up in a soft snowbank or a deep ditch. Or, I might be dead, bent around a telephone pole. This is a less than perfect situation. 

Now, if swerving that day meant I avoided killing a bicyclist or hurting a dozen kids walking to school, would I make the same decision? Life’s choices are full of constraints. There may not be a soft snowbank in which to land. I might end up in a ditch to avoid the kids.

War isn’t as simple as driving down a road without constraints. There are unforeseen events that cause us to abruptly change speed or direction. As the driver, maybe my choice is simply to slow down to let an out-of-control car pass in front of me. Or maybe I speed up to avoid it. Staying the course only ensures my car is going to lose its front end!

I support the people of Ukraine and their sovereign right to govern themselves, but I also know that if there is no population, no infrastructure, and no community, there is no Ukraine. I believe President Trump taught President Zelensky a hard, planned lesson.

Russia has China’s “quiet” backing in the war. President Putin leads a very weak state with a small economy but is allied with an extremely powerful one. China is the dominant partner and using Putin to forward President Xi Jinping’s explicitly stated global goals. 

Xi intends to remake the world order in China’s image, with Beijing in the lead. Like a speeding car crossing our path, China is the real danger to the free world. We need to look forward while paying attention to the whole highway! 

China’s ancient military strategist, Sun Tzu, once wrote that a good military leader must seek higher ground for his troops to see the enemy farther down the road. Russia is led by an authoritarian dictator intent on reliving past days of glory by restoring the Russian Empire. China is manipulating his xenophobic desire to achieve its own malevolent ends. The United States needs to look down from that high hill too and recognize Russia can’t do it alone. That means understanding that Putin is forced to seek the aid of a more evil power to survive – China. That is the identity of our real adversary! 

If I were advising President Trump, I would tell him don’t make the same mistake Nixon made and get “played” by China. We remain the strongest nation in the world in 2025. Xi is not ready to directly confront us, but he is distracting us with a proxy war while he builds his global hard and soft power base.

Is it better to call a halt to US aid for the Ukraine war? The people there have lost most of the infrastructure, local communities, and many lives. What is the end result going to be? China will ensure Russia keeps the West busy in Ukraine while it goes about ensuring its own survival. It won’t provide enough aid for an outright Russian win or to cause the West to turn further against China. It will allow a slow starvation of resources for those  involved in the war.

In an imperfect world, what is the best long-term solution? Does one add up an imaginary total number of acceptable losses of life? Is it the dollars of infrastructure destroyed? Or, the square miles of land temporarily gained or lost? If our goal is to save a sovereign nation-state, there must be something to save, or the war will reignite at a later date. It is to China’s advantage to ensure it.

“What if…”

Russia is similar to our Wild American West of the 1860’s. “What if,” unlike how we opened China to the West without consequences for its future bad behavior, the free world led Russia to the side of freedom while simultaneously holding it accountable for progress toward that goal? It has happened elsewhere in our lifetime. Taiwan is a good example.

It might not be a complete change by the end of our tomorrows. But is it worth considering? Moscow’s alliance with Beijing is a friendship of convenience. We can’t ignore the horrible actions of Russia today, but a future scenario with the world driving down the same highway is an accident about to happen. 

China funds Russia just enough to maintain a rough stalemate. If the war continues for another five years, will there be another few hundred thousand deaths? The schools, housing, businesses, communities, and people of Ukraine will be gone. The culture will be virtually eliminated. Already many Ukrainians do not want to return because there is so little to go back to in the country. Their homes and towns are destroyed and their neighbors dispersed across the world.

There is a significant developing global factor that few talk about in policy statements. Ukraine’s wheat fields lay fallow. The grain that once helped feed Europe, much of developing Africa, and some of Asia is no longer sown in spring. The fields once called the “breadbasket of Europe,” are now the most mined land in the world. Farm equipment captured by Russia is located in their fields. It is not right or fair, but those are the facts. Malnutrition adds to the number of lives lost to war… unless we devalue and ignore them! 

Ukraine can be saved. The question is: “What is the best way forward, in the long-term, to save as much of the Ukrainian nation-state, its people, infrastructure, and culture as possible? 

There is no simple answer to this complex problem. However, too often American thinking is near-term oriented, and overlooks other perspectives down the road. Washington needs to consider holistically how best to move forward in an imperfect environment.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

For decades, Americans and their businesses have paid high taxes and fees. The national debt continues to grow. The federal government collected $1.08 trillion in revenue during fiscal year (FY) 2025. It spent about $1.6 trillion.

What happened to all those dollars collected and spent? The nation’s infrastructure remains inadequate, its schools produce dramatically and increasingly underperforming students, it armed forces are not sufficiently prepared in the face of global challenges, poverty continues to plague portions of the population, services on the federal, state and local level are unimproved, and the national debt continues to grow.

Upon taking office, President Trump moved to examine how Washington spends taxpayer dollars, and what it spends them on. Whatever one’s views are on the 47^th President, his policies, or his political party, his move was both urgently needed and logical. With a national debt of $36.5 trillion dollars that continues to grow with each second, not doing so would be irresponsible at best and disastrous at worst.

The means the White House chose to fulfill the task was to create a Department of Government Efficiency. According to the Executive Order establishing the organization, “Agency Heads shall take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS [United States Digital Service] Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.  USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards.”

No broad area of government has been held immune. There has been no ideological or partisan emphasis on the areas to be reviewed. Targets are as diverse as the USAID, the Department of Education and the Pentagon. However, the response from the Democratic Party and their media supporters has resembled a chorus of scorched cats. 

Rather than a rational discourse, Democrat partisans have threatened violence and more.

Dr. Steve Caudle of the Greater Second Missionary Baptist Church Chattanooga, TN wrote on X that: “No one likes violence, but sometimes violence is necessary. When Elon Musk forces his way into the U.S. Treasury and threatens to steal… Sometimes the devil will act so ugly that you have no other choice but to get violent and fight.”

Democrat elected officials have threatened to withhold funding from the federal government.

In New York, Governor Hochul has threatened to raise property taxes if the White House moves to shut down the waste at the Department of Education.

Up to forty members of Congress appeared at the Department of Education in an attempt to intimidate workers from cooperating with the elected president.

The reason for the over-the-top response is clear. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), writing in the Wall Street Journal, gave an example of the type of fraud and waste being targeted from one source: “…The U.S. Agency for International Development, entrusted with disbursing tens of billions of aid dollars to other nations annually, often acts at odds with our nation’s best interests and uses intimidation and shell games to hide where money is going, how it’s being spent and why…We learned that the aid that was supposed to alleviate economic distress in the war-torn nation was spent on such frivolous activities as sending Ukrainian models and designers on junkets to New York City, London Fashion Week, Paris Fashion Week and South by Southwest in Austin, Texas.”

Hannah Knudsen reports in Breitbart that “The Biden administration wasted $8 billion of taxpayer money teaching Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid ‘binary gendered language…$20 million for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. $25 million for Deloitte to promote green transportation in the country of Georgia. Nearly $8 million to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid quote ‘binary gendered language.’ Binary gendered language in Sri Lanka…Another $5 million, she said, went to  one of the key…non-government organizations — funding bat virus research at the Wuhan lab…’”

With such obvious waste, with taxes so high, and with Washington so deeply in debt, why are so many elected and Progressive individuals and groups so rabidly opposed to imposing fiscal sanity?

The answer is political funding.  So much of the money spent on programs winds up supporting not just the issue they appear to. They actually serve to launder funds that wind up in the pockets of Democrat donors and Progressive causes.

Just one example: Open Secrets discloses that “Close to $1 million of the alternative energy industry’s donations went directly to Biden…Such groups also spent proportionately more on outside spending than ever before, giving $3.9 million to primarily liberal outside groups.”

It’s a scandal with a rich legacy. During the Obama presidency, Vast federal funds were sent to a private company which supported Democrats.  Newsmax Solyndra Scandal: 8 Facts About Barack Obama’s Green Energy Company Controversy | Newsmax.com reported that In 2009, the California-based green energy solar panel manufacturer Solyndra received a $535 million loan. It was revealed that the Office of Management and Budget officials felt pressured to approve the loan, despite an awareness of Solyndra’s financial instability. ABC News reported, “The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds.”

The Week noted that “The family foundation of billionaire George Kaiser, an Obama fundraiser, is one of Solyndra’s big investors. The GOP says that Team Obama interfered to speed up the loan approval, cutting short due diligence so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce the loan at the Sept. 4, 2009, groundbreaking of a new Solyndra factory being financed by that government cash.”

For decades, funds meant for programs designed to fight poverty, racism, or climate change have failed to address those problems, but have effectively provided a wealth of dollars for left wing causes and volunteers for Democrat campaigns.

Establishing common-sense fiscal accountability threatens to derail that gravy train.

Illustration: Pixabay

NGO’s like Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and the like have been getting big money from the federal government for years to provide assistance to “refugees.” 

On its face, this sounds reasonable.  In the immortal words of Emma Lazarus, in her poem, The New Colossus, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”   She even calls the subject of her poem, the Statute of Liberty, the “Mother of Exiles.”  

But in our book. Not Wasting a Crisis, The Lawless Biden Administration,  , at Chapter 21, we describe the abuse of the immigration system by Homeland Security under former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas:

“Asylum claims asserted by illegal border crossers at the border are screened for ‘credible fear,’ that is, ‘there is a ‘significant possibility’ that he or she could establish in a full hearing before an Immigration Judge that he or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or her country.’ As described by the [Congressional Research Service], ‘Credible fear is a ‘low bar’…[a]ccording to [Government Accounting Office] statistics from fiscal years 2015–2019, about 77% of asylum seekers and 87% of asylum seekers in family units establish credible fear…’DHS…can choose to place undocumented migrants directly into immigration court proceedings….[t]o do so, DHS typically releases the migrant from custody with a notice to appear in immigration court (‘NTA’). The practice of releasing undocumented migrants with NTAs…is sometimes called ‘catch and release.’  This is the loophole that most illegals use to cross over our border and remain in our country.  They claim status as an asylum seeker with a credible fear of persecution if they return home; receive a Notice to Appear in Immigration Court; and are released into our country.”

To summarize what has been happening for the past four years; Homeland Security accepted at face value the majority of claims by illegal border crossers that they were refugees, allowed them into the country, and NGOs like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services received lavish federal grants to provide these “refugees” with a variety of social services, such as food, housing and travel across our land.

This made NGOs a partner to the Biden Administration’s law breaking, a partner who was very well paid for their services out of the public coffers.

Of course, no one expects these NGOs and their allies in the Democrat Party to just give up on their extremely profitable business.  As described by Forbes, “[c]oalitions of Democratic state attorneys general and nonprofits announced lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s administration…over its guidance temporarily pausing nearly all federal assistance, the first in what’s expected to be a series of lawsuits taking aim at the guidance as legal experts argue it’s unlawful…Plaintiffs argued the guidance will have a ‘devastating impact’ on nonprofits that receive government grants, which depend on the federal funds ‘to fulfill their missions, pay their employees, pay their rent—and, indeed, improve the day-to-day lives of the many people they work so hard to serve.’” 

Certainly, there are organizations doing useful and legal work who are justified in asking that their federal funding continue unabated.  But if the mission of the nonprofit is to assist “undocumented” border crossers with questionable claims to refugee status to enter and remain in the United States in violation of the immigration laws, then what is unreasonable about stopping those groups from these unlawful activities?

We can predict that there will be federal judges who believe that the grant money gravy train should continue, and order Homeland Security to keep the spigot open. But even if such judicial activism occurs, the Trump Administration is moving to make such orders irrelevant by keeping these so-called refugees out of the hands of their NGO enablers.

Besides making stronger efforts at closing the border in the past month than the Mayorkas-led Homeland Security did in the last four years, President Trump has also issued an Executive Order “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.”

” Over the last 4 years,” the order reads, “the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).  Cities and small towns alike…have seen significant influxes of migrants…The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.” 

Therefore, on this basis, “This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.” 

Kind of hard to spend grant money on refugees that aren’t there, isn’t it?

Most important, as this issue gains attention, more and more people are becoming aware of the misuse of public funds perpetrated by the Biden Administration and their allies in non-governmental organizations.

As Fox News host Greg Gutfeld said during his opening monologue late in January of this year, “Something non-government, how can that be bad?  True, it sounds safe, even boring…see, I thought NGOs were actually charities…but NGOs are not charities, far from it.  Many powerful NGOs have fueled America’s illegal crisis by subverting the laws, by actively transporting migrants into the country, moving them from one city to the next to avoid detection, and basically throwing your money around…you must have wondered as you watched the migrants stream across the border, how did they even get to that point? Who was aiding and supplying them…who was behind this? As it turns out, you and I were, without our knowledge.  You assumed that NGOs didn’t have their fingers in your wallet, when in reality they’re pickpocketing you… and they profit from doing things that were considered  illegal for Uncle Sam to do himself.  And they receive a bulk of their funding from us.” 

For years, we have been describing this system of criminal behavior in detail, and in all that time, our warnings have been roundly ignored or discounted.  But one of the most positive effects of the dawning of the Trump Administration is our ability to now watch the new government reveal these methods to the public at large by which the lawless Biden Administration violated our laws. 

Thus, whether or not a federal judge orders the spending to continue becomes irrelevant in many ways. The practice of NGOs using their public funding to help illegal border crossers to break the law is now revealed for all to see.  The issue is no longer shrouded in darkness.

And day light often serves as the best disinfectant.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) swerved on the bench in NYC.

Illustration: Pixabay

Recently, Kristi Noem, the former Governor of South Dakota who now serves as the Secretary of Homeland Security, announced that “the department has stopped all grant funding to nonprofits that operate outside of government control.”   The reason? “[S]ome non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which receive millions in federal grants, have been facilitating illegal immigration by helping aliens cross the U.S. border.” 

 While appearing as a guest on Fox News, Noem stated that “[m]any of these NGOs actually have infrastructure and operations set up in Mexico, on that side of the border, and are telling those illegal immigrants to come to them, and they will get them across the border…they’re not just operating in the United States, they’re operating outside the United States to help make it easier for those who want to break our laws.”

What exactly are non-governmental organizations? Simply put, an NGO is ” a nonprofit organization that operates independently of any government, typically one whose purpose is to address a social or political issue.” 

According to the State Department, “[f]rom the earliest days of U.S. history, civil society organizations have played a key role in protecting human rights and advancing human progress… [a]pproximately 1.5 million NGOs operate in the United States. These NGOs undertake a wide array of activities, including political advocacy on issues such as foreign policy, elections, the environment, healthcare, women’s rights, economic development, and many other issues…Many NGOs in the United States operate in fields that are not related to politics. These include volunteer organizations rooted in shared religious faith, labor unions, groups that help vulnerable people, such as the poor or disabled, and groups that seek to empower youth or marginalized populations.” 

As wonderful as these activities are, why would the federal government be involved in providing funding for groups that “empower youth” and “marginalized populations?” The State Department claims the grant money is provided “[t]o fill gaps in programming, the Bureau also supports NGOs that provide relief services overseas. Many of these groups have expertise in a specific region and/or a particular service.”

In other words, these NGOs provide services the government is unable to provide.

The Government Accountability Office reports that NGO’s have received approximately 8 billion dollars in federal funds between 2022 and 2024.  Further, as described by the Philanthropy Roundtable, “[t]oday about 170 social service efforts across the U.S. are supported by Catholic Charities… about two thirds of Catholic Charities’ annual spending comes from government sources (more than half a billion dollars of federal grants alone).” https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/catholic-charities/

In 2022, we discussed the efforts made by NGO’s like Catholic Charities to provide assistance to “refugees.” We quoted directly from the website for Catholic Charities USA , which states that “[i]n addition to providing essential services to immigrants and refugees to the U.S. [the group] also advocate(s) for policies that protect family unity and allow newcomers to contribute to and more fully participate in their new communities…Migrants are an especially vulnerable population cared for by Catholic Charities staff and volunteers because they are on the move, far from home, and strangers in a strange land.  After being processed by federal authorities, they arrive at our sites weary from their travels…Catholic Charities serves migrants and refugees along the border and throughout the U.S. interior by providing for basic humanitarian needs such as food, shelter and clothing; assisting families with social work case management; providing asylum-seekers with immigration legal assistance; and resettling refugees from all corners of the world.” 

In fact, as far back as 2020 we made this observation: “For years, the Catholic Charities organizations of various states have been involved in placing immigrants in communities across the United States.  To be fair, Catholic Charities is not the only religion-based organization engaged in this work – Lutheran Social Services and Baptist Child and Family Services are also deeply involved in Refugee Resettlement.  In 2018, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops received $28 million to help resettle refugees.  These funds are spread across awards entitled ‘Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance,’ ‘Residential Service for Unaccompanied Children,’ and ‘Refugee Social Services.’  Lutheran Social Services also received $28 million, and Baptist Child and Family Services received $127 million (spread among several Baptist groups under the umbrella of Baptist Child and Family Services.” 

In that same article from 2020, we also described the impact these efforts at refugee resettlement have had in the State of North Dakota. “[I]n December of 2015, ‘over the past 14 years, Lutheran Social Services has resettled 4,000 refugees from 35 countries in North Dakota.’  Each refugee receives a federal grant of $925 dollars for initial housing costs, however, if you multiplied that cost by 445 immigrants estimated to be resettled in 2016, “that would lead to a cost of $423,650 for fiscal year 2016 to resettle New Americans. (Note – I came up with $411,625 when I did the math.)  Also, with the brunt of the resettlement program here in Cass County, social services estimates that about 15% of its budget goes toward serving refugees.  Their 2014 budget was more than $14,132,517, which means just over $2.1 Million was spent serving the refugee population of Cass County.’”

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay