Help World-Outlook Win New Subscribers
(the subscription is free of charge)
Dear reader,
Over the last month, World-Outlook and its sister publication in Spanish Panorama-Mundial have published unique coverage of U.S. and world events.
This includes the three-part interview with Cuban historian and writer Ernesto Limia Díaz, ‘Cuba Is the Moral and Political Compass of the World.’ A related article by Mark Satinoff, World Votes with Cuba to Demand an End to U.S. Blockade, included information on the campaign to send medical aid to Cuba in the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa and was shared widely by the Los Angeles Hands Off Cuba Committee and other Cuba solidarity groups.
A number of readers sent their appreciation for Cathleen Gutekanst’s article Chicago Residents Fight ICE Abductions, Deportations, which provided a compelling, eyewitness account of this example of working-class resistance to the Trump administration’s war on undocumented immigrants. Some readers shared it widely on social media platforms.
The news analysis Bigotry, Jew Hatred Take Center Stage in GOP Mainstream also generated interest. It is part of World-Outlook’s consistent analysis of the danger of the rise of incipient fascism that Trumpism has posed for the working class and its allies in the U.S. and the world.
Most recently, another article by Mark Satinoff, ‘From Ceasefire to a Just Peace’ in Israel and Occupied Territories, was promoted by Friends of Standing Together (FOST NY/NJ) on the group’s website. Alon-Lee Green and Sally Abed — the two Standing Together leaders featured at the November 12 event in Brooklyn, New York, that Mark’s article covered — and Israelis for Peace sent their thanks to Mark for his accurate reporting.
This is a small sample of the news coverage and political analysis World-Outlook offers.
We ask you to use this information to try to convince at least one of your acquaintances, colleagues, friends, fellow students, neighbors, or relatives to subscribe to World-Outlook. As you know, the subscription is free of charge. Increasing World-Outlook’s subscription base will widen the site’s reach. It will also provide new impetus to improve our coverage. Comments and reactions from subscribers, or initiatives from readers to cover events in their areas, often result in unexpectedly invaluable articles or opinion columns clarifying important political questions.
Feel free to share this letter, or part of its contents, with those you are asking to subscribe. And keep World-Outlookinformed about the reactions you get from potential new readers.
In solidarity,
World-Outlook editors
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Funds for Kevin Cooper
Kevin was transferred out of San Quentin and is now at a healthcare facility in Stockton. He has received some long overdue healthcare. The art program is very different from the one at San Quentin but we are hopeful that Kevin can get back to painting soon.
For 41 years, an innocent man has been on death row in California.
Kevin Cooper was wrongfully convicted of the brutal 1983 murders of the Ryen family and houseguest. The case has a long history of police and prosecutorial misconduct, evidence tampering, and numerous constitutional violations including many incidences of the prosecution withholding evidence of innocence from the defense. You can learn more here .
In December 2018 Gov. Brown ordered limited DNA testing and in February 2019, Gov. Newsom ordered additional DNA testing. Meanwhile, Kevin remains on Death Row at San Quentin Prison.
The funds raised will be used to help Kevin purchase art supplies for his paintings . Additionally, being in prison is expensive, and this money would help Kevin pay for stamps, books, paper, toiletries, supplies, supplementary food, printing materials to educate the public about his case and/or video calls.
Please help ease the daily struggle of an innocent man on death row!
An immediate act of solidarity we can all do right now is to write to Kevin and assure him of our continuing support in his fight for justice. Here’s his address:
Kevin Cooper #C65304
Cell 107, Unit E1C
California Health Care Facility, Stockton (CHCF)
P.O. Box 213040
Stockton, CA 95213
www.freekevincooper.org
Call California Governor Newsom:
1-(916) 445-2841
Press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish,
press 6 to speak with a representative and
wait for someone to answer
(Monday-Friday, 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. PST—12:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. EST)
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Dr. Atler Still Needs Our Help!
Please sign the petition today!
https://www.change.org/p/texas-state-university-give-tom-alter-his-job-back
What you can do to support:
—Donate to help Tom Alter and his family with living and legal expenses: https://gofund.me/27c72f26d
—Sign and share this petition demanding Tom Alter be given his job back: https://www.change.org/p/texas-state-university-give-tom-alter-his-job-back
—Write to and call the President and Provost at Texas State University demanding that Tom Alter be given his job back:
President Kelly Damphousse: president@txstate.edu
President’s Office Phone: 512-245-2121
Provost Pranesh Aswath: xrk25@txstate.edu
Provost Office Phone: 512-245-2205
For more information about the reason for the firing of Dr. Tom Alter, read:
"Fired for Advocating Socialism: Professor Tom Alter Speaks Out"
Ashley Smith Interviews Dr. Tom Alter
—CounterPunch, September 24, 2025
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Stop Cop City Bay Area
Did you know about a proposed $47 million regional police training facility in San Pablo—designed for departments across the Bay Area?
We are Stop Cop City Bay Area (Tours & Teach-Ins), a QT+ Black-led grassroots collective raising awareness about this project. This would be the city’s second police training facility, built without voter approval and financed through a $32 million, 30-year loan.
We’re organizing to repurpose the facility into a community resource hub and youth center. To build people power, we’re taking this conversation on the road—visiting Bay Area campuses, classrooms, cafes, and community spaces via our Fall 2025 Tour.
We’d love to collaborate with you and/or co-create an event. Here’s what we offer:
Guest Speaker Presentations—5-minute visits (team meetings, classrooms, co-ops, etc.), panels, or deep dives into:
· the facility’s origins & regional impacts
· finding your role in activism
· reimagining the floorplan (micro-workshops)
· and more
· Interactive Art & Vendor/Tabling Pop-Ups — free zines, stickers, and live linocut printing with hand-carved stamps + artivism.
· Collaborations with Classrooms — project partnerships, research integration, or creative assignments.
· Film Screenings + Discussion — e.g., Power (Yance Ford, 2024) or Riotsville, U.S.A. (Sierra Pettengill, 2022), or a film of your choice.
👉 If you’re interested in hosting a stop, open to co-creating something else, or curious about the intersections of our work: simply reply to this email or visit: stopcopcitybayarea.com/tour
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to connecting.
In solidarity,
Stop Cop City Bay Area
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Dear Organization Coordinator
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to invite your organization to consider co-sponsoring a regional proposal to implement Free Public Transit throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
This initiative directly supports low-income families, working people, seniors, youth, and others who rely on public transportation. It would eliminate fare barriers while helping to address climate justice, congestion, and air pollution—issues that disproportionately affect disadvantaged communities.
We believe your organization’s mission and values align strongly with this proposal. We are seeking endorsements, co-sponsorship, and coalition-building with groups that advocate for economic and racial equity.
I would love the opportunity to share a brief proposal or speak further if you're interested. Please let me know if there’s a staff member or program director I should connect with.
A description of our proposal is below:
sharethemoneyinstitute@gmail.com
Opinion: San Francisco Bay Area Should Provide Free Public Transportation
The San Francisco Bay Area is beautiful, with fantastic weather, food, diversity and culture. We’re also internationally famous for our progressiveness, creativity, and innovation.
I believe the next amazing world-leading feature we can add to our cornucopia of attractions is Free Public Transportation. Imagine how wonderful it would be if Muni, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, SamTrans, SF Bay Ferries, and all the other transportation services were absolutely free?
Providing this convenience would deliver enormous, varied benefits to the 7.6 million SF Bay Area residents, and would make us a lovable destination for tourists.
This goal - Free Public Transportation - is ambitious, but it isn’t impossible, or even original. Truth is, many people world-wide already enjoy free rides in their smart municipalities.
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is promoting free transit, with a plan that’s gained the endorsement of economists from Chile, United Kingdom, Greece, and the USA.
The entire nation of Luxembourg has offered free public transportation to both its citizens and visitors since 2020. Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, has given free transit to its residents since 2013. In France, thirty-five cities provide free public transportation. Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, offers free rides to seniors, disabled, and students. In Maricá (Brazil) – the entire municipal bus system is free. Delhi (India) – offers free metro and bus travel for women. Madrid & Barcelona (Spain) offer free (or heavily discounted) passes to youth and seniors.
Even in the USA, free public transit is already here. Kansas City, Missouri, has enjoyed a free bus system free since 2020. Olympia, Washington, has fully fare-free intercity transit. Missoula, Montana, is free for all riders. Columbia, South Carolina, has free buses, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has enjoyed free transit for over a decade. Ithaca, New York, and Madison, Wisconsin, offer free transit to students.
But if the San Francisco Bay Area offered free transit, we’d be the LARGEST municipality in the world to offer universal Free Transit to everyone, resident and visitor alike. (Population of Luxembourg is 666,430. Kansas City 510,704. Population of San Francisco Bay Area is 7.6 million in the nine-county area)
Providing free transit would be tremendously beneficial to millions of people, for three major reasons:
1. Combat Climate Change - increased public ridership would reduce harmful CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Estimates from Kansas City and Tallinn Estonia’s suggest an increase in ridership of 15 percent. Another estimate from a pilot project in New York City suggests a ridership increase of 30 percent. These increases in people taking public transportation instead of driving their own cars indicates a total reduction of 5.4 - 10.8 tons of emissions would be eliminated, leading to better air quality, improved public health, and long-term climate gains.
2. Reduce Traffic Congestion & Parking Difficulty - Estimates suggest public transit would decrease traffic congestion in dense urban areas and choke points like the Bay Bridge by up to 15 percent. Car ownership would also be reduced. Traffic in San Francisco is the second-slowest in the USA (NYC is #1) and getting worse every year. Parking costs in San Francisco are also the second-worst in the USA (NYC #1), and again, it is continually getting worse.
3. Promote Social Equity - Free transit removes a financial cost that hits low-income residents hard. Transportation is the second-biggest expense after housing for many Americans. In the Bay Area, a monthly Clipper pass can cost $86–$98 per system, and much more for multi-agency commuters. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, this is a significant cost. People of color, immigrants, youth, seniors, and people with disabilities rely more heavily on public transit. 55–70% of frequent transit riders in the Bay Area are from low-to moderate-income households, but these riders usually pay more per mile of transit than wealthy drivers. Free fares equalize access regardless of income or geography.
Free transit would help people 1) take jobs they couldn’t otherwise afford to commute to, thus improving the economy, 2) Stay in school without worrying about bus fare, 3) Get to appointments, child care, or grocery stores without skipping meals to afford transit.
To conclude: Free Public Transit should be seen as a civil rights and economic justice intervention.
The Cost? How can San Francisco Bay Area pay for Free Transit throughout our large region?
ShareTheMoney.Institute estimates the cost as $1.5 billion annually. This sum can acquired via multiple strategies. Corvallis, Oregon, has had free public bus service since 2011, paid for by a $3.63 monthly fee added to each utility bill. Missoula, Montana, funds their fare-free Mountain Line transit system, via a property tax mill levy. Madison, Wisconsin’s transit is supported by general fund revenues, state and federal grants, and partnerships/sponsorships from local businesses and organizations.
Ideally, we’d like the funds to be obtained from the 37 local billionaires who, combined, have an approximate wealth of $885 billion. The $1.5 billion for free transit is only 0.17% of the local billionaire's wealth. Sponsorship from the ultra-wealthy would be ideal. Billionaires can view the “fair transit donation” they are asked to contribute not as punishment or an “envy tax”, but as their investment to create a municipality that is better for everyone, themselves included. They can pride themselves on instigating a world-leading, legacy-defining reform that will etch their names in history as leaders of a bold utopian reform.
Our motto: “we want to move freely around our beautiful bay”
——
Hank Pellissier - Share The Money Institute
Reverend Gregory Stevens - Unitarian Universalist EcoSocialist Network
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*  Russia Confirms Jailing of Antiwar Leader Boris Kagarlitsky In a secret trial on June 5, 2024, the Russian Supreme Court’s Military Chamber confirmed a sentence of five years in a penal colony for left-wing sociologist and online journalist Boris Kagarlitsky. His crime? “Justifying terrorism” — a sham charge used to silence opponents of Putin’s war on Ukraine. The court disregarded a plea for freedom sent by thirty-seven international luminaries. Kagarlitsky, a leading Marxist thinker in Russia’s post-Soviet period, recently addressed socialists who won’t criticize Putin: “To my Western colleagues, who…call for an understanding of Putin and his regime, I would like to ask a very simple question. [Would] you want to live in a country where there is no free press or independent courts? In a country where the police have the right to break into your house without a warrant? …In a country which…broadcasts appeals on TV to destroy Paris, London, Warsaw, with a nuclear strike?” Thousands of antiwar critics have been forced to flee Russia or are behind bars, swept up in Putin’s vicious crackdown on dissidents. Opposition to the war is consistently highest among the poorest workers. Recently, RusNews journalists Roman Ivanov and Maria Ponomarenko were sentenced to seven, and six years respectively, for reporting the military’s brutal assault on Ukraine. A massive global solidarity campaign that garnered support from thousands was launched at Kagarlitsky’s arrest. Now, it has been revived. This internationalism will bolster the repressed Russian left and Ukrainian resistance to Putin’s imperialism. To sign the online petition at freeboris.info —Freedom Socialist Party, August 2024 https://socialism.com/fs-article/russia-jails-prominent-antiwar-leader-boris-kagarlitsky/#:~:text=In%20a%20secret%20trial%20on,of%20Putin's%20war%20on%20Ukraine. Petition in Support of Boris KagarlitskyWe, the undersigned, were deeply shocked to learn that on February 13 the leading Russian socialist intellectual and antiwar activist Dr. Boris Kagarlitsky (65) was sentenced to five years in prison. Dr. Kagarlitsky was arrested on the absurd charge of 'justifying terrorism' in July last year. After a global campaign reflecting his worldwide reputation as a writer and critic of capitalism and imperialism, his trial ended on December 12 with a guilty verdict and a fine of 609,000 roubles. The prosecution then appealed against the fine as 'unjust due to its excessive leniency' and claimed falsely that Dr. Kagarlitsky was unable to pay the fine and had failed to cooperate with the court. In fact, he had paid the fine in full and provided the court with everything it requested. On February 13 a military court of appeal sent him to prison for five years and banned him from running a website for two years after his release. The reversal of the original court decision is a deliberate insult to the many thousands of activists, academics, and artists around the world who respect Dr. Kagarlitsky and took part in the global campaign for his release. The section of Russian law used against Dr. Kagarlitsky effectively prohibits free expression. The decision to replace the fine with imprisonment was made under a completely trumped-up pretext. Undoubtedly, the court's action represents an attempt to silence criticism in the Russian Federation of the government's war in Ukraine, which is turning the country into a prison. The sham trial of Dr. Kagarlitsky is the latest in a wave of brutal repression against the left-wing movements in Russia. Organizations that have consistently criticized imperialism, Western and otherwise, are now under direct attack, many of them banned. Dozens of activists are already serving long terms simply because they disagree with the policies of the Russian government and have the courage to speak up. Many of them are tortured and subjected to life-threatening conditions in Russian penal colonies, deprived of basic medical care. Left-wing politicians are forced to flee Russia, facing criminal charges. International trade unions such as IndustriALL and the International Transport Federation are banned and any contact with them will result in long prison sentences. There is a clear reason for this crackdown on the Russian left. The heavy toll of the war gives rise to growing discontent among the mass of working people. The poor pay for this massacre with their lives and wellbeing, and opposition to war is consistently highest among the poorest. The left has the message and resolve to expose the connection between imperialist war and human suffering. Dr. Kagarlitsky has responded to the court's outrageous decision with calm and dignity: “We just need to live a little longer and survive this dark period for our country,” he said. Russia is nearing a period of radical change and upheaval, and freedom for Dr. Kagarlitsky and other activists is a condition for these changes to take a progressive course. We demand that Boris Kagarlitsky and all other antiwar prisoners be released immediately and unconditionally. We also call on the authorities of the Russian Federation to reverse their growing repression of dissent and respect their citizens' freedom of speech and right to protest. Sign to Demand the Release of Boris Kagarlitskyhttps://freeboris.infoThe petition is also available on Change.org *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* *..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........* |
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Mumia Abu-Jamal is Innocent!
FREE HIM NOW!
Write to Mumia at:
Smart Communications/PADOC
Mumia Abu-Jamal #AM-8335
SCI Mahanoy
P.O. Box 33028
St. Petersburg, FL 33733
Join the Fight for Mumia's Life
Since September, Mumia Abu-Jamal's health has been declining at a concerning rate. He has lost weight, is anemic, has high blood pressure and an extreme flair up of his psoriasis, and his hair has fallen out. In April 2021 Mumia underwent open heart surgery. Since then, he has been denied cardiac rehabilitation care including a healthy diet and exercise.
He still needs more complicated treatment from a retinal specialist for his right eye if his eyesight is to be saved:
Donate to Mumia Abu-Jamal's Emergency Legal and Medical
Defense Fund
Mumia has instructed PrisonRadio to set up this fund. Gifts donated here are designated for the Mumia Abu-Jamal Medical and Legal Defense Fund. If you are writing a check or making a donation in another way, note this in the memo line.
Send to:
Mumia Medical and Legal Fund c/o Prison Radio
P.O. Box 411074, San Francisco, CA 94103
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
Resources for Resisting Federal Repression
https://www.nlg.org/federalrepressionresources/
Since June of 2020, activists have been subjected to an increasingly aggressive crackdown on protests by federal law enforcement. The federal response to the movement for Black Lives has included federal criminal charges for activists, door knocks by federal law enforcement agents, and increased use of federal troops to violently police protests.
The NLG National Office is releasing this resource page for activists who are resisting federal repression. It includes a link to our emergency hotline numbers, as well as our library of Know-Your-Rights materials, our recent federal repression webinar, and a list of some of our recommended resources for activists. We will continue to update this page.
Please visit the NLG Mass Defense Program page for general protest-related legal support hotlines run by NLG chapters.
Emergency Hotlines
If you are contacted by federal law enforcement, you should exercise all of your rights. It is always advisable to speak to an attorney before responding to federal authorities.
State and Local Hotlines
If you have been contacted by the FBI or other federal law enforcement, in one of the following areas, you may be able to get help or information from one of these local NLG hotlines for:
Portland, Oregon: (833) 680-1312
San Francisco, California: (415) 285-1041 or fbi_hotline@nlgsf.org
Seattle, Washington: (206) 658-7963
National Hotline
If you are located in an area with no hotline, you can call the following number:
National NLG Federal Defense Hotline: (212) 679-2811
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
1) This Is the Kind of Bigotry We Rejected Decades Ago
By Amanda Frost, Dec. 5, 2025
Ms. Frost is a law professor at the University of Virginia who specializes in immigration law.
Will Matsuda for The New York Times
Sixty years ago, the United States abolished immigration restrictions based on nationality alone. By 1965, such discrimination had become an embarrassment. In an emotional ceremony by the Statue of Liberty, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared that the legislation he was signing “corrects a cruel and enduring wrong” and makes Americans “truer to ourselves both as a country and as a people.”
Now the Trump administration is reviving nationality-based discrimination. After an Afghan refugee allegedly shot two National Guard members on Nov. 26, the Trump administration “indefinitely” stopped processing immigration-related applications for all Afghans — even those who have lived legally in the United States for years. The administration extended that same suspension to immigrants from 18 other countries, including those on the verge of receiving green cards or citizenship. President Trump declared that Somalis are “garbage” on Tuesday, adding that they should “go back to where they came from,” and has threatened to denaturalize citizens. Meanwhile, his administration claims it can classify undocumented 14-year-old Venezuelans as “alien enemies” and deport them without judicial review.
Starting in 1875 and for most of the century that followed, country-specific immigration bans were the norm, not the exception. To be born in a disfavored country was considered to be inherently unfit to immigrate to the United States.
Nativism escalated gradually. In 1875, a law barred prostitutes from “China, Japan, or any Oriental country” from entering the United States. Although people from all backgrounds practiced the world’s oldest profession, Congress perceived women from these countries as a particular threat. “Virtue is an exception” among Chinese women, one lawmaker had claimed years earlier. Another had warned that these women “spread disease and moral death among our white population.” The law succeeded in shutting down immigration for almost all Asian women, prostitutes or not.
Seven years later, the Chinese Exclusion Act went further, barring all laborers from China. Once again, Congress relied on sweeping generalizations about the Chinese. “Alien in manners, servile in labor, pagan in religion, they are fundamentally un-American,” said one congressman, referring to hundreds of millions of people.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning.
Once the nation started thinking this way, it was hard to stop. When a Jewish factory manager was accused of murder in 1913, his conviction fueled antisemitic xenophobia. Likewise, the 1921 murder conviction of two Italian anarchists, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, helped incite the Red Scare and the restrictive immigration laws that followed. At the heart of these crackdowns were not only assumptions of collective national guilt, but beliefs in a collective national character.
Nativist fervor culminated in 1924 with the Immigration Act. Aimed at slowing immigration from undesirable countries, the law capped immigration to 2 percent of a nationality’s U.S. population as of 1890, over 30 years earlier. It proved impossible to unwind Americans’ tangled ancestry, but no matter. The law was used to justify giving the majority of visas to Northern and Western Europeans, while strictly limiting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe — a change celebrated by the Ku Klux Klan for keeping out Catholics and Jews. The door remained almost entirely closed to people from Asia and Africa.
Why would lawmakers choose to reject a promising scientist from Asia while welcoming an illiterate farmer from Germany? Because they conflated race, nation and culture into a set of immutable traits attached to entire countries. The national character was in their “alien blood,” lawmakers said, rendering some nationalities inherently unfit for membership in the United States.
If the Trump administration has its way, these assumptions will once again govern U.S. immigration policy. Last week, Stephen Miller, the architect of President Trump’s immigration policy, defended collectively punishing Afghans for the shooting that killed one National Guard member and injured another. “You are not just importing individuals. You are importing societies,” he wrote. “Migrants and their descendants recreate the conditions, and terrors, of their broken homelands.” Mr. Miller would have felt right at home in the 1924 Congress.
Mr. Miller and others in the Trump administration do not appear to know that those 1924 immigration restrictions are no longer on the books. Abolishing national origin discrimination was a sea change in law that stands alongside the Voting Rights Act as one of our most important pieces of civil rights legislation. That 1965 law allocated visas based primarily on family reunification and an applicant’s ability to contribute to the labor market. Every immigrant is individually vetted, and immigration is capped worldwide, but no longer are any nationalities automatically restricted.
America is stronger for it. Nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children — and many came from countries that were heavily restricted before 1965. Immigrants generally commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, and Afghans are no exception.
The recent shooting was horrific, and the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. But collective punishment is just the sort of bigotry that the nation rejected decades ago.
It’s also likely to be illegal. As the Supreme Court explained when upholding Mr. Trump’s first travel ban back in 2018, the president has statutory authority to suspend entry into the United States based on national origin, at least for some period of time. But that does not permit him to deny visas, cancel green cards or denaturalize immigrants based on nothing more than their country of origin.
Without question, today’s antiquated immigration system is in need of a major overhaul. But we should never go back to a system that made collective judgments about the worthiness of specific nationalities to immigrate to the United States — particularly not based on an incident involving a single person.
At his 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson told the nation that it should ask prospective immigrants, “What can you do for our country?” not “In what country were you born?” Johnson was right, whatever the Trump administration would like to believe.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
2) Trump’s Security Strategy Focuses on Profit, Not Spreading Democracy
President Trump’s new National Security Strategy describes a country that is focused on doing business and reducing migration while avoiding passing judgment on authoritarians.
By Anton Troianovski, Reporting from Washington, Dec. 5, 2025
President Trump at the White House last month. The National Security Strategy his administration released describes a world in which American interests are far narrower than how prior administrations — even in his first term — had portrayed them. Tom Brenner for The New York Times
Latin American countries must grant no-bid contracts to U.S. companies. Taiwan’s significance boils down to semiconductors and shipping lanes. Washington’s “hectoring” of the wealthy Gulf monarchies needs to stop.
The world as seen from the White House is a place where America can use its vast powers to make money.
President Trump has shown all year that his second term would make it a priority to squeeze less powerful countries to benefit American companies. But late Thursday, his administration made that profit-driven approach a core element of its official foreign policy, publishing its long-anticipated update to U.S. national security aims around the world.
The document, known as the National Security Strategy, describes a world in which American interests are far narrower than how prior administrations — even in Mr. Trump’s first term — had portrayed them. Gone is the long-familiar picture of the United States as a global force for freedom, replaced by a country that is focused on reducing migration while avoiding passing judgment on authoritarians, instead seeing them as sources of cash.
“We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world,” it says, “without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.”
The National Security Strategy of Mr. Trump’s first term, by contrast, cast the world as a contest “between those who favor repressive systems and those who favor free societies.”
The National Security Strategy has no binding force, and some analysts cautioned against reading too much into it as a guide to future actions given Mr. Trump’s mercurial nature.
But the release of the strategy, which recent presidents have generally updated just once in every term, did carry significance as a snapshot in time. Amid the debates swirling among Republicans over American policy toward the Middle East, Russia, China and elsewhere, the document showed how the administration has appeared to coalesce around a commitment to avoid military entanglements and promote commerce.
In an interview, Dan Caldwell, a former senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who argues in favor of American military restraint, hailed the new strategy as a “true break from the failed bipartisan post-Cold War foreign policy consensus.”
“For too long, delusion undergirded our foreign policy — delusion about America’s role in the world, delusion about our interests and delusion about what we can achieve through military force,” Mr. Caldwell said. “This is a reality-based document in that regard.”
The document codifies Mr. Trump’s well-established aversion to Europe’s liberal governments and his readiness to overlook human rights abuses, as with his “things happen” remark last month about the murder and dismemberment of a Saudi Washington Post columnist in 2018. Representative Gregory W. Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it “discards decades of values-based U.S. leadership in favor of a craven, unprincipled worldview.”
The strategy depicts Europe as facing “civilizational erasure” at the hands of immigrants and its mainstream leaders. It says the United States will cultivate “resistance” to Europe’s mainstream leaders, and asserts that many of their governments “trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.”
That stance provoked an outcry from European politicians, echoing the shock when Vice President JD Vance castigated German officials in February for trying to blunt the rise of the country’s far-right party. Carl Bildt, a former Swedish prime minister, posted on social media that the National Security Strategy “places itself to the right of the extreme right in Europe.”
Outside Europe, departing from decades of precedent in U.S. foreign policy, the 33-page document does not characterize democracy as a value to be defended. Israel and Taiwan — two democracies whose security the United States has long sought to support — are described in the context of their regions’ economic significance, not their connection to American values.
The Middle East, it says, is “a source and destination of international investment.” The document calls for “dropping America’s misguided experiment with hectoring these nations — especially the Gulf monarchies — into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government.”
In Latin America, the document says, the United States will “reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere.” Along the way, American diplomats are to hunt for “major business opportunities in their country, especially major government contracts.”
“The terms of our agreements, especially with those countries that depend on us most and therefore over which we have the most leverage, must be sole-source contracts for our companies,” the document says.
The strategy offers little insight into the Trump administration’s deliberations about a possible attack on Venezuela. While it says the United States should have a “predisposition to non-interventionism,” it also says that American military force is to be redeployed to Latin America from elsewhere “to address urgent threats in our hemisphere.”
Mr. Caldwell, the former adviser to Mr. Hegseth, said that many in Mr. Trump’s “America First” movement “have concerns about a regime change war in Venezuela.”
“But that said, what happens in Venezuela and our own hemisphere deserves more focus than who controls the Donbas,” he added, referring to the region of eastern Ukraine that Russia is demanding in peace talks.
The National Security Strategy takes a far more restrained view of geopolitical competition than prior administrations did. Gone is any reference to the worldview laid out in Mr. Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy: “China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests.”
Without describing Russia as an adversary, the new document says that “an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” is a “core interest of the United States.” The goal of such a peace deal, it says, would be both to “re-establish strategic stability with Russia” and to enable Ukraine’s “survival as a viable state.”
China is cast as a competitor, but mainly in the familiar commercial terms often repeated by Mr. Trump. The document says a war over Taiwan needs to be deterred because of what would be its “major implications for the U.S. economy.” It calls for “a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing,” echoing the conciliation of the trade truce that Mr. Trump and Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, announced in October.
Jonathan Czin, a director for China on the National Security Council under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said the new strategy carried “a happier message for Beijing” than the versions published under Mr. Biden or in Mr. Trump’s first term. Among other things, he said, the document’s focus on Latin America should be welcome news for China.
“I think it would be viewed with some relief,” said Mr. Czin, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Megan Mineiro contributed reporting from Washington.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
3) One Step From Citizenship, Some Find It Eludes Their Grasp
Sweeping immigration changes by the Trump administration have resulted in the cancellation of naturalization ceremonies, the last step in the process of becoming a citizen.
By Jazmine Ulloa and Orlando Mayorquín, Dec. 6, 2025
“The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up a landmark dispute over the constitutionality of President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, guaranteed in the 14th Amendment that American citizenship should be extended to anyone born in the United States. Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican in Ohio who emigrated with his family as a child from their native Colombia, this week introduced legislation that would end dual citizenship in the United States.”
Jazmine Ulloa reported from New York, and Orlando Mayorquín from Los Angeles.
Raouf Vafaei with his mother, Ferdous Taheri, outside their home in Tucson, Ariz. Credit...Rebecca Noble for The New York Times
Raouf Vafaei followed all the rules.
He obtained his green card, passed his civics test and his naturalization interview, and underwent multiple background checks.
After eight years in the United States, Mr. Vafaei, an Iranian-born mental health worker who emigrated from Austria, was just days away from becoming an American citizen when he learned in a four-sentence email that his naturalization ceremony scheduled for Friday had been canceled.
“I was so excited,” Mr. Vafaei, 41, said in an interview this week, referring to the honor of officially calling himself an American. His mother had even bought a new dress for the occasion. “This is one wish that many people have all over the world.”
That honor is now paused, indefinitely.
After an Afghan refugee was charged in last month’s shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, the Trump administration has made sweeping changes to limit legal immigration, including halting the entire process for people from 19 countries that the White House put under a travel ban earlier this year.
From Massachusetts to California, people seeking citizenship and their lawyers say, federal immigration officials are canceling naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies for immigrants from Iran, Sudan, Eritrea, Haiti, Somalia and other countries restricted by Mr. Trump in June. Those almost-new citizens have been left in uncertainty about their futures in the United States, with some making sure they carry their documents in case they are questioned by immigration authorities as they go about their daily lives.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees the immigration system, has not released data on the number of people affected, but the new wave of actions is likely to affect thousands from some of the poorest and most unstable nations in the world. Mr. Trump and his administration officials have argued their ban against these targeted nations is necessary to secure the country from “foreign terrorists” and those who overstay U.S. visas.
“There is no time frame — nobody knows how long this is going to be,” said Teresa Coles-Davila, an immigration lawyer in San Antonio who has struggled to obtain answers from federal immigration officials as she has sought to advise an Iranian client whose ceremony this month was canceled. “Literally, no one knows what is happening.”
The policy changes narrowing the legal path to citizenship have been unfolding more slowly and less publicly than the dramatic scenes that have played out on the streets as masked agents have raided homes, workplaces and courthouses searching for people to deport. The changes are among the many attempts on multiple fronts to tighten who can call themselves an American in the United States.
The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would take up a landmark dispute over the constitutionality of President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, guaranteed in the 14th Amendment that American citizenship should be extended to anyone born in the United States. Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican in Ohio who emigrated with his family as a child from their native Colombia, this week introduced legislation that would end dual citizenship in the United States.
This year, the Trump administration reinstated a more difficult civics test and ramped up social media vetting for people seeking to become naturalized citizens. Immigration officers have also been directed to check for more “positive attributes,” like family caregiving and stable employment.
Officials with Citizenship and Immigration Services on Friday did not respond to requests for comment or questions on how many citizenship ceremonies had been canceled or why. Officials also did not respond to claims from lawyers that their clients had been left in limbo.
Administration officials in the past have said that the requirements for acquiring citizenship have become stricter because the process had been too lax. In fiscal year 2024, 818,500 people became new citizens in naturalization ceremonies held in the United States and around the world, according to the agency.
Lawyers said their clients had already been vetted multiple times as they passed through a series of legal hoops before even applying for citizenship, including establishing lawful permanent residency and obtaining work authorization. The process to apply for citizenship itself has long been cumbersome and can take months, sometimes years. The final, required step is taking the oath of allegiance and receiving a certificate of naturalization at a ceremony.
Mr. Vafaei, who left Iran when he was in his early 20s, had lived in Austria for 14 years before he immigrated to the United States in 2017 to help out his mother after the death of his father. He married an American citizen and obtained his green card. He is now in the middle of a divorce, but as he started his naturalization process in April, he passed his interview and background check and was approved for citizenship, he and his lawyer said.
The notice that his ceremony had been called off came in a short email this week with no explanation about when it would be rescheduled or what steps he should take next.
“I am so upset, but I can’t do anything about it,” he said. “All I can do is wait.”
Rosanna, a physician associate student in Texas, had shared the good news with her hospital colleagues after her citizenship was approved months ago. She had been looking forward to the email she expected to list her ceremony date. Instead, when the email came this week during a shift in the emergency room, it simply said that her ceremony was canceled.
Rosanna, who asked to be identified by only her first name for fear of repercussions from immigration officials, said she texted her lawyer after receiving the email. The best guess, she said, was the decision was most likely based on the fact that Rosanna, a Canadian citizen, had been born in Libya, where she holds no citizenship and had not lived since she was a child.
“It’s definitely disappointing — having come from a third world country — it’s just never-ending disappointment,” she said. “I definitely feel unwelcome here.” She said she had been looking forward to vote in next year’s midterm elections.
Other citizen petitioners have been turned away after arriving at their court ceremonies or interviews with little information as to why or how to proceed, their lawyers said.
Lawyers and staff members at the Boston office of Project Citizenship, a nonprofit providing free legal services to immigrants across Massachusetts and New England, typically see clients return to their office to show off their naturalization certificates and take cheerful photos with the people who helped them through the arduous citizenship process. But this month they have had 21 clients notified that their oath ceremonies had been canceled.
One of those clients, a Haitian woman who lives in Boston and has had her green card for more than 20 years, arrived for her ceremony, where she found Citizenship and Immigration Service officers asking people where they were from and telling those from countries affected by the travel ban, like herself, that they could not participate in the ceremony, said Gail Breslow, the group’s executive director.
“We have been hearing a lot of anxiety, fear,” she said. “We’ve been needing to reassure people that this isn’t their fault.”
For some lawyers, it was only the latest round of cancellations and confusion.
In late September and early October, dozens of immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras who had obtained asylum had their naturalization interviews canceled “on the spot” in the New York area, said Benjamin Remy, a senior coordinating attorney with the New York Legal Assistance Group, a social services organization. He and lawyers with other local nonprofits eventually pieced together that it had been over a little-noticed overnight policy change that had put their cases under review after several Latin American criminal organizations were designated terror groups.
Still, there are people who get through the process, which often culminates in a joyous oath ceremony capped with a sheet cake, light refreshments and dozens of participants waving miniature American flags.
In a Manhattan courtroom on Friday, the feelings of stress over the national immigration climate mingled with those of relief and excitement as 149 immigrants lined up before federal officials to complete the final step in their citizenship process. Friends and relatives pumped their fists in the air to cheer on one petitioner. The family member of another waited with a bouquet of red, white and blue roses.
A couple of hours later, no one had been turned away, and a judge took the bench to lead the participants in the oath of allegiance, sharing bits of her grandparents’ own immigrant background and quoting soaring rhetoric about the contributions of immigrants from Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Maureen Lissade, 51, originally from Germany, attended her ceremony alone because her husband was at work and her children at school. Nevertheless, she was excited and relieved. She had married a U.S. citizen 10 years ago and had soon obtained her green card. They had two American-born children, and she spoke English. Still, she felt unease over the hard-line turn of immigration enforcement.
“You hear stories,” she said of why she had applied for her citizenship this year. “I wanted to be more secure, to not have that hanging over my head.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
4) Israel’s Plan to Back Gaza Militias Proves a Risky Gamble
Officials said Israel helped arm and back Yasser Abu Shabab’s Popular Forces, part of a strategy against Hamas, before a local clan killed him this week.
By Aaron Boxerman, Reporting from Jerusalem, Dec. 6, 2025
A destroyed area of Rafah, Gaza. Yasser Abu Shabab and his militia group were based near the city. Credit...Hatem Khaled/Reuters
The killing on Thursday of Yasser Abu Shabab, a Gazan militia leader backed by Israel, underscored what analysts had long warned: that Palestinians handpicked by Israel to undermine Hamas would most likely meet a violent end.
Mr. Abu Shabab’s group, the Popular Forces, was the strongest of several Gaza militias Israel had worked with to combat Hamas. Israeli officials said they had even helped arm Mr. Abu Shabab’s militia, though he denied that.
Many Palestinians condemned Mr. Abu Shabab as a traitor, and some Israelis were equally skeptical of his intentions and capabilities. But in a rare interview in late October, he told The New York Times that he was unabashed about his ties with Israel.
“There’s coordination on the level of security, and on the operations around us,” he said, and added, “These aim to prevent any terrorist from infiltrating us,” referring to Hamas.
On Thursday, the militia leader was killed during clashes involving a Palestinian clan in southern Gaza, his group said on social media.
Hamas did not immediately appear to have been involved in the killing of Mr. Abu Shabab, who was based near the city of Rafah in an area controlled by the Israeli military. But Gaza’s Hamas-run interior ministry celebrated his death in a statement on Friday, saying it was “the inevitable fate of every traitor,” and urged the remaining members of Palestinian militias close to Israel to hand themselves in, “before it is too late.”
Whether the Popular Forces will outlast his death is unclear.
The militant group shared a video showing that Mr. Abu Shabab’s deputy, Ghassan Duhine, had assumed the leadership of the group. Mr. Duhine, whose affiliations before joining the Popular Forces were unclear, could been seen walking in front of gunmen chanting that their spirits remained high.
Since the early days of the war, Israel has cast about for potential Gazan allies who might help erode Hamas’s control. To that end, it has propped up at least four small bands of Palestinian gunmen, the groups’ commanders said in interviews.
Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire in mid-October, ending more than two years of war in Gaza, but they have yet to settle the question of who will control the Palestinian enclave. For now, each side controls roughly half of Gaza’s territory.
A vast majority of Gaza’s two million people live in the Hamas-dominated zone along the coast. The anti-Hamas Palestinian militias have mostly operated in the Israeli-controlled part.
Analysts considered the Popular Forces to be the largest and best organized of those groups. Mr. Abu Shabab said in October that the area he controlled hosted some 3,000 people, fewer than half of whom were fighters. The other commanders, who include Ashraf al-Mansi in northern Gaza and Housam al-Astal east of the southern city of Khan Younis, said in interviews that they hosted a couple hundred people each in their areas.
Though the Popular Forces was militarily outnumbered by Hamas, it said it had skirmished with Hamas fighters, even saying in late November that it had taken at least one prisoner.
The small militias helped secure parts of Gaza on behalf of the Israeli military, freeing up Israeli troops for other missions, said Shalom Ben Hanan, a retired senior official in Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet.
“They carry out military missions as though they were a military unit,” Mr. Ben Hanan said. “If they weren’t around to do them, our own forces would have to.”
But for most Palestinians, Mr. Abu Shabab’s checkered past and ties with Israel made him an unacceptable candidate for any future leadership role in Gaza.
A Bedouin from southeastern Rafah, Mr. Abu Shabab rose to notoriety in late 2024, when he was accused of raiding scores of aid convoys during a particularly severe hunger crisis at the height of the war.
Mr. Abu Shabab and his gunmen dominated an area close to Gaza’s Kerem Shalom crossing on the border with Israel. In an interview at the time, he conceded that his Kalashnikov-wielding gang had looted a handful of trucks, although he said he had seized the goods only to feed himself, his family and neighbors.
Georgios Petropoulos, a senior U.N. official who was based in Gaza at the time, called him “the self-styled power broker of east Rafah.” Mr. Petropoulos, as well as other U.N. workers trying to get aid into Gaza, accused Israel of ignoring Mr. Abu Shabab’s attacks on aid.
The repeated ransacking drew the ire of Hamas, and at least 20 members of Mr. Abu Shabab’s organization, including his brother, were killed in a shootout with Hamas fighters late last year.
Earlier this year, Mr. Abu Shabab began touting himself as a Palestinian leader on social media, calling his band of gunmen an anti-Hamas “counterterrorism force.” He released footage that appeared to show that, in the corner of Rafah that he ruled, the group provided tents and schools for people sheltering there.
While many Palestinians in Gaza went hungry as Israeli restricted supplies from entering the enclave, Mr. Abu Shabab said in the October interview that his area was relatively well provisioned.
Israel and his forces, aided by Israeli aerial surveillance, he said, worked together to prevent any Hamas fighters from entering their area. He said he also provided the names of his fighters and their families to the Israeli military as part of coordination with Israel.
Despite Israel’s support, neither Mr. Abu Shabab’s group nor the other ragtag bands of gunmen were likely to pose a significant threat to Hamas, said Mr. Ben Hanan, the former Shin Bet officer. There were far too few of them, he argued, and their association with Israel had tainted them in the minds of most Palestinians.
“They will always be considered traitors and collaborators,” Mr. Ben Hanan said. “No one will want to get close to them.”
Many Gazans view the militias as little better than gangs who exploited the chaos of war to accumulate power.
Montaser Bahja, an English teacher in Gaza City, said Palestinians needed new leadership and to engage with Israel if necessary in order to reach a better future. But it could not come from people like Mr. Abu Shabab, he said.
“This man was basically a criminal, and I could not accept for him to represent me,” Mr. Bahja said.
Mr. Abu Shabab said before his death that he hoped to shape a future Gaza without Hamas, but beyond that it was not clear what he stood for. He dismissed accusations that he was a traitor for working with Israel, though he conceded that some Palestinians considered his actions “disreputable.”
He said that if they “had will and courage, they would have been like Yasser Abu Shabab.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
5) Trump Has Long Disdained Europe’s Elites. Now, It’s Official.
A new White House policy document formalizes President Trump’s long-held contempt for Europe’s leaders. It made clear that the continent now stands at a strategic crossroads.
By Jason Horowitz, Reporting from Madrid, Dec. 6, 2025
A Norwegian soldier during a NATO military exercise this year. European governments have tried to wean themselves off American military might by increasing their own military spending and cooperation. Credit...Davide Monteleone for The New York Times
The Trump administration has not exactly kept its low regard for Europe secret. President Trump has long portrayed European allies as freeloaders that fail to pay enough for their own security and argued that the European Union was “formed to screw the United States.”
Now, that hostility is official White House policy.
The Trump administration issued a national security strategy paper this week that called for European nations to take “primary responsibility” for their own defense, indicating that the United States should no longer guarantee Europe’s security. It accused the European Union of stifling “political liberty,” warned that some NATO members risked becoming “majority non-European,” and said the U.S. should align with “patriotic European parties” — code for Europe’s far-right movements.
The blunt, bracing and official nature of the document added injury to incessant insult, making clear to mainstream European leaders that they stand at a strategic crossroads. On a paper stamped with the president’s seal, the trans-Atlantic alliance was being openly denigrated by the superpower across the ocean that has ensured European security in the 80 years since World War II.
“It’s up there at whitehouse.gov staring the world in the face,” Charles A. Kupchan, who was senior director for European Affairs on the National Security Council in the Obama administration, said of the document. “And that makes it very hard to digest,” added Mr. Kupchan, now professor of international affairs at Georgetown University.
The now explicit prospect of the United States’ withdrawing its protection came days after Russia — whose talking points on European countries, some experts said, were echoed in the strategy document — warned that it was ready for war with Europe. It made more urgent a debate within the continent about whether its long-term interest lay in holding on to America regardless of the humiliations, or in facing a new reality, arming up and going it alone.
“Is this going to be the moment of European awakening?” said Nathalie Tocci, a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, who has worked as an adviser to key European Union officials and wrote one of its strategy reports.
Anticipating a fissure in trans-Atlantic relations, European governments have in recent years tried to wean themselves off American military might by increasing their own defense spending and cross-border military cooperation. Several have introduced or expanded military service, with Germany, one of the countries best placed to defend the continent in a major land conflict, passing legislation on Friday to increase its forces by nearly 50 percent. And the European Union now has a commissioner for defense whose primary job is to boost regional arms production and cooperation.
But the reality remains that Europe — lacking real military integration, key capabilities and ammunition — is hugely reliant on the United States and on an administration that professes to not like it much. A change, some argued, was necessary.
“Till now there was no, let’s say, systemic response,” said Romano Prodi, a former president of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union. He said he hoped the bloc would “elaborate a policy” that made it more assertive.
“This does not mean to break the links with the United States,” he said. “This means to have a voice.”
But the lack of strong public outcry from Europe’s leaders about the strategy document indicated that they had gotten used to Mr. Trump’s tantrums — it was, Mr. Prodi said, “Nothing new: dividing Europe and despising Europe” — and had decided the best response was to let him cry it out and then hold him and the alliance close. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, exemplified that approach on Saturday, saying in response to the document that the U.S. was “still our biggest ally.”
Mr. Kupchan, the professor of international relations, said that Europe’s leaders understood that biting the Trump bullet was the smarter, and perhaps only, long-term play. He said the document made it harder for them to stomach the humiliation and concessions necessary to keep Mr. Trump close to their position on the major issues of the day, from trade policy to Europe’s defense of Ukraine in its war with Russia.
But to keep the trans-Atlantic alliance from going kaput, “flattering Trump and keeping him on their side” was what they had to do, Mr. Kupchan said.
For Europe, analysts said, the challenge was preserving both the process of integration that had made it rich and peaceful, and the American security blanket that had kept it safe. In the 80 years since World War II, European integration, pursued in significant part to limit Germany, was “one of the great accomplishments of modern times,” Mr. Kupchan said.
“Anybody who wants to dismantle Europe should just pick up any history book of the 20th century,” he said, adding “or any history prior to 1945.”
But dismantling seems to be precisely what the Trump administration wants to do, analysts said.
Ms. Tocci, the professor at Johns Hopkins University, said that supporting right-wing parties antagonistic to the European Union would divide and weaken the continent, leaving a “fractured Europe which is easily colonizable” by the globe’s great powers.
The effort to divide Europe is hardly new. Russia has been doing it for more than a decade, boosting euroskeptic and often far-right parties who want to weaken the European Union, strengthening Moscow’s hand. Some experts said they considered the United States national security strategy a facsimile of the Russian playbook.
“It’s striking because that is very similar to language which you’ll find in the analogous Russian national security document,” said Timothy D. Snyder, a prominent scholar of totalitarianism and Russia.
Mr. Snyder added that by suggesting that good foreign policy was about balancing between great powers rather than upholding the rule of law, “the U.S. national security document is now tilting in the basic ideological direction of the Russian one.”
He also said the paper sounded similar to “flat-out Russian propaganda” in its assertions that a majority of Europeans wanted the war in Ukraine to end no matter what, and that it was continued by out-of-touch elites.
Mr. Snyder also echoed other analysts when he said he suspected that the Trump administration’s sub rosa goal in weakening Europe was to free American tech companies from encumbering European regulation, an objective it has previously stated.
Mr. Prodi, the former E.U. Commission president, argued that the Trump administration’s policy prognoses violated the very sovereignty it preached, by “entering in a very inappropriate way into the internal policy of other countries.”
But some of Europe’s sovereigntist right-wing parties welcomed the intrusion and the long-awaited recognition from the White House.
“All these things are our message, our diagnosis, so we’re happy,” said Hermann Tertsch, a member of the European Parliament with Spain’s far-right Vox party, who said that during previous administrations, “we were very afraid” of the United States.
Under Mr. Trump, however, it was a source of comfort, Mr. Tertsch said, adding, “It’s a new era.”
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
6) This Prison Rehabilitated Inmates. Until ICE Paid to Fill It With Immigrants.
Over two decades, a minimum-security prison aimed at helping inmates prepare to leave prison was a point of civic pride. Now, state officials have converted it to ICE detention.
By Allison McCannVisuals by Cheney Orr, Reporting from McCook, Neb., Dec. 7, 2025
The inmates housed at the minimum-security state prison in McCook, Neb., could often be seen around town, working on road paving, weeding cemeteries, taking down Christmas lights and mowing the high school football field before games. They took classes at the local community college, and an art gallery displayed work from 13 prisoners this summer.
For more than two decades, the prison, known as the Work Ethic Camp, was Nebraska’s only state prison geared solely toward rehabilitation. The facility held nonviolent felony offenders who were nearing the end of their sentences and prepared them, with counseling, schooling and job training, to return to the outside world.
That changed this fall, after state officials announced that the Work Ethic Camp would be replaced with a 300-bed, high security Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center to support President Trump’s national crackdown on illegal immigration.
And so a place that had been devoted to second chances now had a very different mission, and a new name to go with it: “The Cornhusker Clink.”
In McCook, a conservative town of about 7,500 that voted overwhelmingly for President Trump, some residents have objected. Many said they support Mr. Trump’s stance on illegal immigration but also liked what they had before: A prison that didn’t feel like a prison. With its close ties to the community, it was a place that helped Nebraskans get back on their feet.
Other residents said they were in favor of the new ICE facility, viewing McCook as doing its part for the president’s agenda and potentially benefiting from 50 to 60 added jobs. But opponents said they were frustrated by Gov. Jim Pillen’s unilateral decision to change the facility and turn it into a place to detain immigrants. City officials are also worried about the potential strain on resources if hundreds of detainees are transported in and out through the town’s small airport, which has one full-time employee.
“Now when people think of McCook, this is all it is — it’s ICE detention,” said Nate Schneider, the city manager and a registered Republican who said he has voted for both parties over the years. “But for us, it’s a lot more than that. McCook is home. McCook is a place that I want my kids to think is a good place to live. We’ve been working so hard to make McCook a draw, and now this.”
The Trump administration, aiming to deliver on a campaign promise of deporting one million people this year, has sought to expand its detention capacity. Federal authorities took the rare step of seeking detention space in state prisons, signing agreements with Indiana, Louisiana, Florida and Nebraska, all states where Republican governors have agreed to assist.
McCook officials said they were given no advance notice of the state’s decision to repurpose the Work Ethic Camp, nor have they been told that the city can expect any revenue from the ICE agreement with the state, which Mr. Pillen has said will bring in about $14 million annually, after expenses to run the facility.
Thirteen McCook residents and a former state legislator sued the governor, arguing that the facility was designated and funded by the Nebraska Legislature for the purposes of rehabilitating state inmates, and that Mr. Pillen did not have authority to change that. In October, a judge declined to grant the residents an injunction but also declined the governor’s request to dismiss the case, which is proceeding.
“I have no problem with prosecuting immigrants who commit crimes,” said Bruce McDowell, a retired telecommunications technician and a plaintiff in the suit. Mr. McDowell, a Democrat, said he viewed Governor Pillen’s decision to turn the facility over to federal authorities as a political calculation. “He’s trying to curry favor with Donald Trump, and that carries a lot more weight than a few of us down here,” he said.
Mr. Pillen’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but the governor has previously said that the facility would benefit the state, calling it “good for Nebraska’s taxpayers” and a way to ensure that Nebraska is “doing all that we can to keep criminal, illegal aliens off our streets.”
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said that the department’s leadership was “grateful for Governor Pillen’s partnership to help remove the worst of the worst out of our country.” The ICE facility began housing detainees in early November and has only held about 28 men, on average, each day.
‘A wake-up call’
In 1997, the Nebraska Legislature approved the Work Ethic Camp, so named to reflect the facility’s stated philosophy that “positive work ethics can be learned and transferred to other areas of an individual’s life.” Its purpose was to prepare low-level offenders to return to the community and to reduce a perpetual overcrowding problem in Nebraska prisons. The state’s prison system regularly ranks among the nation’s most overcrowded.
The Work Ethic Camp housed fewer than 200 people at a time and cost the state around $10 million annually. Its programming included vocational and educational courses, as well as classes to contend with substance abuse and domestic violence. McCook did not receive any direct revenue from the work camp but many residents were employed there, and the inmates worked low-paying jobs around town.
Over the years, a few prisoners escaped, but in many ways, the camp was seen as accomplishing its stated goals. A 2024 corrections department report touted that of 369 people held there last year, more than 90 percent successfully completed requirements that allowed them to be released from the camp.
Over 48 cent coffee at Arby’s, where a group of men gather most mornings, residents were divided over whether McCook should have had a say in the decision to convert the facility into an ICE detention center.
“Who are we to say, ‘No, you can’t bring them here, you’ve got to go somewhere else,’” asked Brad Gillen, who owns a carpet cleaning business in McCook and voted for President Trump. “If this is our part we have to do, that’s fine.”
But others took issue with Governor Pillen for choosing to partner with federal authorities without seeking input from the community most affected, McCook.
“He did it to us, not with us,” said Dale Dueland, a semiretired farmer and rancher, who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Mr. Pillen and describes himself as nonpartisan.
“If you’d come before this all happened, most people here would say that what happens in Washington is so far away, it doesn’t affect us,” Mr. Dueland added. “All of a sudden it’s like a wake-up call that what happens in those faraway places can directly affect us here.”
From Washington to McCook
In mid-March, Mr. Pillen and his staff members traveled to the White House to attend one of President Trump’s executive order signing ceremonies. The following week, David Lopez, Mr. Pillen’s chief of staff, exchanged emails with D.H.S. officials, thanking them for meeting with him. He also inquired about how Nebraska might assist in immigration enforcement.
It is not clear exactly how Mr. Pillen and the corrections department landed on offering up the Work Ethic Camp, one of nine state correctional facilities, in the months that followed. But in August, in a joint statement with D.H.S., the governor announced the plan. That was the first time most people in McCook learned that the camp would be repurposed.
“I am pleased that our facility and team in McCook can be tasked with helping our federal partners protect our homeland,” Mr. Pillen said in the announcement. In addition to a new detention facility, Mr. Pillen announced that the Nebraska State Patrol and 20 Nebraska Army National Guard soldiers would assist ICE officials.
Mr. Pillen later announced the state’s new contract with the federal government: ICE would pay Nebraska a one-time fee of $5.9 million for renovations, and monthly payments of $2.5 million over a contract period of two years.
In its final months, around 186 men were held at the Work Ethic Camp. As the camp was closing, about 100 of them were moved to even less restrictive correctional facilities that allow inmates to leave daily and seek full-time employment. Ten others were released altogether, some on parole and others on supervision.
Still, 76 inmates were moved to more secure facilities, most to the Nebraska State Penitentiary, the state’s oldest prison, in Lincoln.
One of them was Jeff Smith, who is now serving his 7-year sentence for felony drug possession and other charges at the Nebraska State Penitentiary after being moved from the Work Ethic Camp.
“There’s no outside jobs here, no self help classes here, no chance to go out everyday and work in the garden,” Mr. Smith said in an exchange over a messaging system that prisoners can access.
“Consider us collateral damage,” he said.
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*..........*
