US Migrant Reality Show Would Not Be Like ‘Hunger Games,' Producer Says
Producer Rob Worsoff told NewsNation that the intention is not to create a situation resembling the "Hunger Games for migrants."
President Donald Trump's administration has effectively shut down asylum as it looks to remove millions of migrants without legal status as part of a hardline mass deportation policy. If the TV show proceeds, it would be one of the two new methods to obtain a U.S. citizenship under the administration.
Trump floated the idea of a "gold card" visa that cost $5 million to replace the EB-5 visa and fast track immigration into the U.S.
Trump rose to national prominence through his role as the host of the reality television show The Apprentice, which aired for 14 seasons and helped establish his public image before his entry into politics. A proposed new show, along with Amazon's reported $40 million licensing agreement for a documentary about first lady Melania Trump, suggests that media companies continue to explore opportunities to engage with figures in the Trump administration.
Worsoff said that the series will be a "celebration of America in the most positive possible way." He said contestants would already be part of the immigration system, but the competition would simply determine who receives expedited processing.
"All I'm offering is to jump to the front of the line," he said.
Worsoff is best known for his work as a producer on the A&E reality series Duck Dynasty.
Worsoff said that he presented the concept to the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations, all of which expressed interest, though the project was never implemented.
The show is expected to open with 12 preselected contestants arriving at Ellis Island aboard The Citizen Ship, where they are welcomed by a celebrity host and presented with a personalized baseball glove.
From there, the contestants travel the country by train, stopping in different regions to compete in challenges based on classic American experiences, such as log balancing in Wisconsin, rocket building in Cape Canaveral, or working on a car assembly line in Detroit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials may assist in vote tallying.
As the competition progresses, eliminated contestants would receive American-style consolation prizes like a million airline miles, a $10,000 Starbucks card or free gas for life. While no specific brands are officially attached to the project, Worsoff believes the show has broad commercial appeal and strong potential for corporate sponsorship.
Worsoff told NewsNation that the show would be produced "respectfully and safely."
Democratic Texas Representative Joaquin Castro criticized the idea during a May 17 appearance on MSNBC, calling the show's premise "a sick idea."
Producer Rob Worsoff told NewsNation: "We're going to put a face to all these people who are on this journey and want nothing more than to be a part of this country, and we're going to humanize them, and we're going to celebrate them."
Homeland Security AssistantSecretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek: "The reporting by the Daily Mail is completely false, and an affront to respectable journalism. Secretary Noem has not 'backed' or even reviewed the pitch of any scripted or reality show. The Department of Homeland Security receives hundreds of television show pitches a year, ranging from documentaries surrounding ICE and CBP border operation to white-collar investigations by HSI.
"Each proposal undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval. If the excuse for a reporter at the Daily Mail had even thought to ask, he would have learned the show in question is in the very beginning stages of that vetting process and has not received approval or denial by staff."
Democratic Texas Representative Joaquin Castro told MSNBC: "The idea that you would do a reality show and have people compete for citizenship, it's just sick, a sick idea."
It is unlikely that the show will be picked up by a major network or streaming platform because of widespread criticism and ethical concerns surrounding the concept.
Related Articles
Who Won 'American Idol' 2025? Celebrities React to WinnerWhat Time Is the 'American Idol' 2025 Finale Tonight? Who Is in the Top 3?'Summer House' Star Imrul Hassan Opens Up About Being UndocumentedDHS Exploring Reality TV Show Where Migrants Compete For Citizenship
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
26 minutes ago
- News24
No US boots on the ground in Ukraine, but Trump promises ‘vague' support
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he had ruled out putting US troops on the ground in Ukraine, but said the US might provide air support as part of a deal to end Russia's war in the country. A day after Trump pledged security guarantees to help end the war at an extraordinary White House summit, the path to peace remained uncertain as the US and allies prepared to work out what military support for Ukraine might include. 'When it comes to security, (Europeans) are willing to put people on the ground. We're willing to help them with things, especially, probably ... by air,' Trump said in an interview with the Fox News Fox & Friends programme. Trump did not elaborate. Later, in an interview with radio host Mark Levin, Trump characterised his negotiating style in trying to end the war as 'probably instinct more than process'. Hours after Zelensky's meetings in Washington, Russia launched its biggest air assault in more than a month on Ukraine, with 270 drones and 10 missiles launched, the Ukrainian air force said. The energy ministry said the strikes caused big fires at energy facilities in the central Poltava region, home to Ukraine's only oil refinery. Trump conceded that Russian President Vladimir Putin might not want to make a deal after all, saying: 'We're going to find out about President Putin in the next couple of weeks.' The nature of US military aid for Ukraine under a peace deal was unclear. Air support could take many forms, such as missile defence systems or fighter jets enforcing a no-fly zone. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that US air support was 'an option and a possibility', but, like Trump, she did not provide any details. 'The president has definitively stated US boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies,' she said at a news briefing. Before Monday's summit in Washington, Russia, which has often said that it agreed with the idea of security guarantees for Kyiv, reiterated its long-standing position that it 'categorically' rejected 'any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine'. Analysts say more than one million people have been killed or wounded in the conflict, which began with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed the White House talks as a 'major step forward' toward ending Europe's deadliest conflict in 80 years and setting up a trilateral meeting with Putin and Trump. Zelensky's warm rapport with Trump contrasted sharply with their disastrous Oval Office meeting in February. Trump discussed Budapest as a venue for a summit involving Zelensky and Putin with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Tuesday, a White House official said. Istanbul, where delegations for the two countries have met previously, has also been mentioned, a senior administration official said. Hungary is one of the few European places that Putin could visit without fear of arrest on International Criminal Court charges as Orban maintains close ties with the Russian leader. AFP It was unclear whether Ukraine would accept Hungary as a venue. Neutral Switzerland also said it would be ready to host Putin for any peace talks. 'They are in the process of setting it up,' Trump told radio host Levin about a Putin/Zelensky meeting. But Trump cast doubt on whether he would attend. 'Now I think it would be better if they met without me. ... If necessary, I'll go,' he said. Trump, asked by Levin how he balanced the interests of all the parties involved, said: 'Well, it's probably instinct more than process. I have instincts.' There has been so far no confirmation from Russia that a potential bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelensky is being planned. After Trump's call to Putin on Monday, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said only that the discussion included the idea of 'raising the level of representatives' in peace talks from both countries - but he did not elaborate to what level. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in remarks published on Tuesday that contacts involving national leaders must be prepared 'with the utmost thoroughness' and cannot be pursed for the sake of 'media coverage or evening broadcasts'. Ukraine's allies held talks in the so-called Coalition of the Willing format on Tuesday, discussing additional sanctions to crank up the pressure on Russia. The grouping has also agreed that planning teams will meet US counterparts in the coming days to develop security guarantees for Ukraine. NATO military leaders were expected to meet on Wednesday to discuss Ukraine, with US General Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expected to attend virtually, officials told Reuters. Yan Dobronosov/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images Putin has shown no sign of backing down from demands for territory, including land not under Russia's military control, following his summit with Trump on Friday in Alaska. Neil Melvin, a director at the International Security at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, said Russia could drag out the war while trying to deflect US pressure with a protracted peace negotiation. Melvin said both Ukraine and its European allies on one side and Russia on the other were striving 'not to present themselves to Trump as the obstacle to his peace process'. 'They're all tiptoeing around Trump' to avoid any blame, he said, adding that Trump's statements on security guarantees were 'so vague it's very hard to take it seriously'.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'South Park' Turns Up The Heat On Trump With 'Perfect' Return Of Beloved Character
'South Park' released a new clip teasing Wednesday night's episode that features the return of a fan-favorite character as the show appears set to continue trolling President Donald Trump. The clip shows Towelie ― a sentient towel who loves to get high ― arriving by bus in Washington, D.C. to find the city under military control. 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel,' Towelie says as he watches a tank roll past the White House ― mimicking the real-life situation in which Trump has sent the National Guard into the city. Trump has claimed the military is needed to bring order to a city besieged by crime. However, the violent crime rate there dropped in both 2024 and 2025, leading critics to blast the move as a 'stunt.' 'South Park' has pulled a few stunts of its own since the show returned last month, mocking corporate parent Paramount for caving to Trump by agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit over '60 Minutes' that most legal observers considered frivolous. Related: Trump has claimed the settlement includes PSAs, and 'South Park' mockingly gave him one at the end of the episode, which showed a very realistic Trump stripping in the desert until he was naked, complete with a talking 'teeny tiny' penis. The show continued to go after Trump and his administration in the second episode, which focused mostly on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The next episode airs Wednesday night on Comedy Central, and will stream on Paramount+. 'South Park' Goes Scorched-Earth On Trump In Shockingly NSFW Season Premiere Aubrey Plaza Details 'Awfulness' After Her Husband's Shocking Death Elon Musk Was Not Pleased With 'Silicon Valley' Show's Portrayal Of Tech Parties
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers, and other users of illegal drugs, cannot own guns. WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall.
