
‘All They Want Is America. All They Have Is Panama.'
Comfortable rooms were repurposed as prison cells, with police officers stationed in the hallways to ensure that people left only for meals. Still, the migrants managed to communicate with journalists by holding written messages up to the windows. One Iranian woman wrote HELP US in lipstick on the glass.
These were the first migrants Donald Trump sent away in a third-country deportation agreement. Some had intended to apply for asylum in the United States—a right enshrined in U.S. and international law. But Trump has suspended the asylum process as part of his immigration crackdown. Many of the 299 people shipped off to Panama—some without even knowing where the planes they'd boarded were bound—now find themselves in a dangerous purgatory. Some don't feel they can return to their countries of origin, but also don't wish to stay in Panama, or don't trust that their asylum pleas will be given due consideration there.
Inconveniently, the U.S. planes arrived in Panama at a moment when the country's leader was keen on reducing immigration. President José Raúl Mulino campaigned last year on building a Trumpian border wall. But when Trump started threatening to seize the Panama Canal, Mulino sought to placate him, even if that meant putting Trump's anti-immigration agenda before his own. Mulino sought to reassure the public that the migrants' stay in Panama was essentially a long layover on the way to deportation: 'We hope to get them out of there as soon as possible.' Government officials emphasized that the migrants were ' in transit,' just like the ships passing through the Panama Canal. But Mulino has said on other occasions that international law would be respected, and that no one would be forced to return to a country where they didn't feel safe.
In mid-March, I went to Panama to find out what might become of the migrants who were still there—those who, politicians kept saying, are in transit, but who seem to have nowhere else to go.
In the early days after the planes' arrival, some of the migrants told me, staffers from the United Nations International Organization for Migration showed up at the hotel and paid each person a visit. According to those I spoke with, the IOM staffers told them that they could either fly home right away on a commercial airline or wait to be deported by the Panamanian authorities. More than half of the migrants signed repatriation documents and flew to their countries of origin, such as India and Uzbekistan.
The Panamanian authorities and the IOM called these returns ' voluntary.' 'IOM does not carry out forced returns or coerce people to voluntarily depart,' an IOM spokesperson told me. 'Our role is limited to assisting those who choose to return so they may do so safely.'
But how well the migrants understood their options is not clear. A Chinese man who identified himself as Xu told me that a woman he'd met at the hotel had texted him from the Istanbul airport. (Xu asked me to withhold his full name so Chinese officials wouldn't know his location.) She told him that she had agreed to repatriate only because she thought she had no choice. When she landed in Istanbul for a layover, she refused to board the connecting flight to China. Then she learned that the people who hadn't signed the repatriation documents had stayed in Panama. She asked Xu if he could talk with someone to arrange her return. Xu wasn't able to help her, and the last time I talked with him, he said that the woman had spent five days in the Istanbul airport before making it to another country, and that she didn't want to talk with reporters. (The IOM spokesperson declined to comment on the woman's case.)
Staff from Panama's National Refugee Office visited the Decapolis and invited the 100 or so remaining migrants to apply for asylum. But the government's public messaging had given them little reason to believe the offer was sincere. On February 19, soon after the migrants landed in Panama, Security Minister Frank Ábrego had declared at a press conference: 'At no point will Panama offer asylum to any of these people.' Hardly any of the migrants made claims at first.
Still, five women from Cameroon and one from Ghana decided to take advantage of the opportunity. 'America doesn't want us and sent us here,' one of them told me. 'Let's stay here.' Asylum decisions usually take years, but an initial decision as to whether their cases were eligible to move forward would take about two weeks from the asylum hearing, they were told. In fact, it came in two days: All six applications were refused. (The national refugee agency, known by its Spanish acronym as ONPAR, did not respond to my request for interviews or comment.)
One of the women was a 32-year-old who fled Cameroon amid fighting last November. She asked me to withhold her name so that assailants in her home country wouldn't be able to locate her. In her asylum hearing, she said that police officers had entered her house and raped her in front of her siblings, and that the police had burned her whole village. But she also said she hoped to work in Panama, because she was 'the only one able to send money to her family.' In the refusal letter, the agency argued on the basis of these words that she was an economic migrant and therefore not in need of asylum.
She and the other remaining migrants were transported from the Decapolis to a camp in San Vicente, in the Darién Gap, the same jungle many of them had crossed by foot on their journey to the United States. They spent three weeks there, amid filth and mosquitos, in unrelenting heat—and without access to lawyers or phones, according to the migrants I spoke with as well as a Human Rights Watch report. Then Panamanian officials came and told them they were free to leave.
They were given permits that allowed them to live, but not work, in Panama for 90 days. All they had to do was sign a document certifying that the Panamanian authorities had treated them well and another agreeing to the terms of the 90-day permit. According to a lawyer who has worked with this group since, some at first refused to sign—they had questions about what the permit entailed—but were pressured into doing so under threat of deportation. (Panama's security ministry declined to comment on the claim that migrants were pressured to sign.) Then they boarded buses that would take them back to Panama City.
The first two buses dropped the migrants off in the parking lot of a shopping mall late on March 8. UNICEF staffers were there waiting for the families with children, to bring them to a hotel. The rest were on their own. Some had been in touch with Caitlyn Yates, a blond, bespectacled American who'd moved to Panama as a doctoral student to study the migration of Asians and Africans through the Darién Gap to North America. When Yates found out that some of her research subjects were on their way to Panama City, she messaged the Panamanian lawyer Victor Atencio, who was also following the migrants' situation closely. Yates and Atencio arrived at the parking lot less than an hour after the migrants, ready to help.
The migrants didn't know it, but Atencio was probably the reason they'd been allowed to leave the Darién Gap. A robust, buttoned-up man of 50, he had read about the migrants in The New York Times. He'd filed a habeas corpus petition that the Panamanian government had ignored. Then he sued Panama before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, asking the court to set some 'precautionary measures': for the migrants to be set free, communication with lawyers to be allowed, and deportation to be deferred. Several legal organizations, including the Global Strategic Litigation Council, joined the suit.
The day before Panama's deadline to respond to the court, it released the migrants and gave them the 90-day permits. According to GSLC's lawyers, the Panamanian government claimed that it had not mistreated the migrants or held them incommunicado. The human-rights commission eventually declined to set the precautionary measures, but reminded Panama to follow international law.
By the time the buses arrived that March night, only a chicken joint and a McDonald's remained open in the mall's food court. Yates bought everyone a meal as Atencio called hotels in the city to find one with availability. Together, they stopped taxis one by one, until there were enough to go to the hotel in a caravan. Samin Haider, a 22-year-old Pakistani, would later describe that night to me as the first time he'd felt hope after arriving in Panama. Yates and Atencio weren't the only ones who showed the migrants kindness. There was the McDonald's cashier who offered them free ice cream, the mall employee who allowed the food court to stay open late, and the taxi drivers who didn't want to be paid.
In mid-March, I visited Hogar Luisa, a two-story house owned by a Catholic charity that Yates had approached and that now sheltered about a dozen of the migrants. Many more were sleeping at a school gym repurposed into a camp by Fe y Alegría, another Catholic charity Yates had enlisted. The migrants were finally free to come and go as they pleased, but so were reporters. They were a bit tired of us.
'Why do you ask so many questions?' a Nigerian woman asked me, laughing. 'We all have the same story.' She asked me to withhold her name out of fear of reprisals against her son, who is still in Nigeria. She said she descends from a long line of priestesses in the local religion of her home region, but she didn't want to be one herself. Instead, she married a Christian and converted to Christianity. When her grandmother, the 'priestess of the shrine,' found out, she pledged to kill her in punishment.
An Iranian woman I met had also converted to Christianity, in a Muslim country where apostasy can be punishable by death. (She asked to remain anonymous to protect her Christian relatives in Iran, and in case she is forced to return.) She'd owned a gym and was married to an electrical engineer. The police learned that the couple were hosting Christian services at their house, and so they'd fled.
A young Pakistani man named Syed Saqlain Badshah told me he'd led student protests in Parachinar in 2017. He'd been hiding from the Pakistani Taliban ever since. A woman named Dora Zhou didn't want to tell me why she and her two teenage daughters had left China. 'It's too painful,' she wrote on her phone. 'I had no choice but to leave.'
I spent perhaps the most time with a 21-year-old woman from Afghanistan who asked to be identified only by her middle name, Serwarah, out of fear of retaliation against her relatives still in the country. She grew up in Maymana, a small city in Faryab province, near the country's northern border with Turkmenistan. As a girl she'd read Napoleon Hill's bootstrapping best seller from 1937, Think and Grow Rich, and she'd planned to study accounting in college and launch her own clothing brand. That was before the Taliban took over. Then those avenues all closed, and her grandmother told her that a Talib with two wives who was many decades older had requested her hand in marriage. She'd known this man all her life—he was her mother's distant cousin—and she wondered when he'd begun thinking of her that way.
To escape this marriage, Serwarah fled Afghanistan in 2021, when she was 17. She settled first in Iran. From there, she tried to cross into Turkey by foot, only to be stopped at the Turkish border and raped by a Turkish border-police officer. She was sent back to Iran. In 2023, she was accepted to Near East University, in Northern Cyprus, one of the few places in Europe where Afghan nationals can get visas on arrival. But officials at Ercan Airport refused to admit her. She decided to make her way to the United States.
From the September 2022 issue: I smuggled my laptop past the Taliban so I could write this story
Serwarah acquired a fake visa for Brazil, where she landed in November 2024, and from there she took buses, trekked the Darién Gap, and took more buses all the way to the United States. Somewhere along the way, she learned that in her absence, the Talib had requested to marry her little sister. She thought about returning and marrying him so that her sister would be spared. But her favorite uncle told her over the phone, If you come back, the Taliban will stone you to death. And he'll still marry your sister.
The night Serwarah left Afghanistan, her sister had insisted she take one thing with her: their great-grandmother's ring, a ruby surrounded by tiny Afghan emeralds. It's the only possession she has kept—she attached it to her bra strap so it wouldn't get lost or stolen and told herself she'd put it on her finger when she reached America and applied for asylum.
When I met her in Panama, Serwarah was living in a shelter, but otherwise seemed in every way like the 21-year-old she was: She spent her days texting her boyfriend, an Afghan she'd met working in a perfumery in Iran, and taking the bus to the mall to buy makeup with money her uncle sent.
The heads of the charities hosting the migrants have years of experience. Panama is, after all, home to the Darién Gap, the treacherous stretch of jungle that separates South and Central America, which thousands of migrants have crossed by foot. But the migrants sent by plane from the United States presented challenges that even these professionals had never encountered, they told me.
From the September 2024 issue: Seventy miles in hell
Father Marco Tulio Gómez, the director of Fe y Alegría, and Jorge Ayala, of Hogar Luisa, normally work alongside government agencies. Both charities reached out to officials to talk about getting work permits for the migrants, and both told me that their calls went unanswered. The Apostolic Nunciature to Panama, the Pope's diplomatic mission in the country, also tried establishing contact with the authorities to no avail. Ayala told me he thought the Panamanian government might be putting off any decisions until it knows whether the Trump administration plans to send more migrants.
Father Gómez told me he was accustomed to working with migrants who were on their way north. 'They still had a goal,' he said. Many of those flown to Panama from the United States, by contrast, seem not to fully understand that America is, for now, not an option. Ayala is still trying to get them work permits, but he told me that most of them don't really want to stay in Panama. He worried that they would try their luck again crossing the U.S. border. 'Between eyebrow and eyebrow, all they have is thoughts of going back,' Ayala said. 'All they want is America. All they have is Panama.'
The group of lawyers that joined Atencio's lawsuit went on to file another lawsuit over Panama's treatment of migrants. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights could take years to make a decision on it. The new lawsuit charges that Panama has not respected the rights of the migrants to seek asylum. Among other claims, it alleges that the Panamanian police obstructed some migrants from applying, and that those who did apply—the six women from Cameroon and Ghana—had no way to seek legal counsel, received immediate denials, and were told by Panamanian authorities not to appeal. 'Everything indicates that the process sought to discourage access to protection rather than guarantee it,' Silvia Serna, one of the lawyers on the suit, told me.
After the lawsuits were filed—the lawyers suggest because they were filed—those migrants who wished to seek asylum were better able to do so. At least three more have been denied, and no one has received a positive answer yet. But the national refugee agency has called some migrants back for interviews, suggesting that their cases may be receiving appropriate consideration.
Whether or not they can, however, very few of the migrants seem to want to apply for asylum in Panama. Ayala knows of only nine between the two shelters who have done so. Those I spoke with told me that they thought their claims would be pointless, and that anyway, they didn't want to live in Panama.
'I don't trust anyone in Panama,' Narges, a reclusive Iranian woman, said when I asked her why she didn't want to apply for asylum. (Another Christian convert, she asked me to omit her last name to protect her relatives in Iran.)
'But do you have any other place to go?' I pressed.
'I don't trust anyone in Panama,' she said again.
After the 90-day permit expires, Panama may well deport those who never sought asylum. 'The fundamental framing of this permit was as a deferred deportation,' Ian Kysel, a co-founder of the Global Strategic Litigation Council, told me. And yet, most of the people I spoke with in March either didn't understand this or had other plans they didn't share with me. When I spoke with migrants still in the shelters just this week, they told me that dozens had left since I was last there. Some, Serwarah texted me, have made it to Mexico.
The last day I went to the Fe y Alegría camp was sunny, with a nice breeze. Nigerian and Ghanaian women were braiding one another's hair under a tree, blasting Afrobeat. Eritreans and Ethiopians were playing Uno on plastic dining tables. Chinese kids had come to visit from the hotel and were running around, hiding behind some of the mattresses on the gym floor.
Serwarah wasn't there—she was staying at Hogar Luisa—but other Afghans had gathered around her closest friend in Panama, Suraiya Hussaini, a 25-year-old whose brother, Ali, had stayed behind in an ICE detention center and was now being deported to Afghanistan. As everyone around her looked forward to movie night, Suraiya looked numb. Serwarah, who heard the news from other Afghans, kept calling to ask for updates, but Suraiya had stopped answering her phone. Anxieties about deportation, which hadn't troubled Serwarah and other Afghans for a few days, had returned with vivid intensity, she later told me.
Before I left Panama, I attended one of President Mulino's Thursday press conferences in Palacio de las Garzas, the presidential office and residence. I asked him whether the migrants would be able to stay in Panama once their 90-day humanitarian permits expired in June.
'I haven't considered this,' Mulino answered. 'The idea is that they leave before.'
'And they do want to leave,' he added. 'They come from countries very, very far away.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
University of Alaska dorms to host up to 750 Russian delegates in town for Trump-Putin summit
The University of Alaska Anchorage is expecting hundreds of Russian delegates who are in the city for the summit between President Trump and President Vladimir Putin to stay in student dorms. 'There may be up to 750 people staying on campus between the U.S. and Russian delegations,' vice chancellor Ryan Buchholdt said in an email to the Alaskan newspaper, Anchorage Daily News. The school can house around 12,000 people. This week marks the start of the school calendar for those returning from the summer break. The summit is going to be held at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, about a 10-minute drive from Anchorage, reports Alaska's News Source. The meeting will mark the first time Trump and Putin have met in person since 2018. 'In addition to the dorms, we do have the Alaska Airlines Center [a sports arena that has a 5,000-seat capacity] that has been set up with beds, meeting most of the need, mostly from the Russian delegation side,' Buchholdt also told Alaska's News Source. University police are working closely with state and federal law agencies to monitor security, Buchholdt added. 'Our main concern is making sure anyone who is staying on campus, whether they are from the United States or Russia or any other locality, is safe,' Buchholdt said, 'and is able to do the mission that they're here to do and go back home safely.' On Thursday, some of the delegates had already arrived as of Thursday afternoon, according to university spokesperson Katie Bender. Flight tracking data showed that at least one flight from Moscow had touched down in Anchorage that afternoon. 'The delegations are in separate locations. For security purposes, we are not able to share where the delegations are located,' Bender added. Alyeska resort, located about 40 miles south of Anchorage, informed local press that they were fully booked for the weekend, and the website of the local hotel, Captain Cook, was also fully booked. The hotel site showed one remaining room in a hostel, at a staggeringly raised price of $150 a night on Friday. Town mayor Suzanne LaFrance explained that finding accommodation at the height of the tourist season is hard enough as it is, let alone with a significant political event taking center stage. 'I know that people are looking at creative solutions. I don't have any specific details about that [housing delegations in UOA], but I know that the university is engaged in those conversations, and I'm optimistic that we'll come up with some options for folks,' she said to Alaska's News Source. At the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, news and camera crews were seen rolling in on Thursday morning. Locals watched on as officials gathered in the vicinity. 'It's kind of a big deal, I mean, do we all want World War III?' one man told Alaska's News Source. The two leaders will hold peace talks regarding the future of Russia and Ukraine, amid a deadly war that has killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides. Earlier on Thursday, Putin praised Trump's 'energetic and sincere efforts to stop' the war in Ukraine. More than a million Russian troops have been killed or injured since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February 2022, reports the British Ministry of Defense. Meanwhile, Ukrainian personnel fatalities and casualties have amounted to around 400,000, says the US-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Ahead of the summit, Trump vowed that Putin was 'not going to mess around with me,' as he hopes to secure a ceasefire deal. The Independent contacted the university, along with the Anchorage tourism board, for comment.


New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Flies to Alaska for High-Stakes Summit With Putin
President Trump boarded Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Md., on Friday. The leaders of the United States and Russia are set to hold talks at an American military base in Alaska to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine, which Russia invaded in 2022. President Trump plans to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday in Alaska. The focus of their high-stakes summit will be to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine, which Russia invaded in 2022. Mr. Trump has sought to broker peace in a conflict he once boasted he could resolve in a day. He has expressed frustration with Mr. Putin recently over what he described as the Russian leader's 'meaningless' gestures toward peace. But Ukraine, whose president wasn't invited to the talks, and its European allies are worried about any deal that might be struck without Kyiv's involvement. Here's what to know about the summit. When are Trump and Putin meeting? The White House said the leaders would begin meeting at 11 a.m. local time (3 p.m. Eastern) on Friday. The Kremlin said Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin would first hold a 'tête-à-tête' discussion with interpreters, followed by negotiations by delegations and 'a working breakfast.' The two leaders are expected to hold a joint news conference at the end, the Kremlin added. The New York Times plans to livestream the news conference. Mr. Trump was scheduled to be on the ground in Alaska for only a few hours, departing for Washington at 5:45 p.m. local time (9:45 p.m. Eastern), the White House said. Where is the summit? The leaders plan to meet at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. Mr. Trump has visited the base several times since he first took office in 2017, but Friday's trip will be the first stop in Alaska of his current term. A White House official familiar with the planning of the event told The New York Times that holding the meeting on the base would make it easier for Mr. Trump to make a one-day trip. An American military base offered extra security, the official said. Alaska has deep ties to Russia, which colonized the region in the 18th century. In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the United States for $7.2 million, but Russian-speaking communities remain in the state. What is expected to come out of it? Mr. Trump dimmed expectations for a possible breakthrough with Mr. Putin, saying on Monday that he was going to see 'what he has in mind.' On Thursday, Mr. Trump said, 'We're going to find out where everybody stands,' adding: 'If it's a bad meeting, it'll end very quickly, and if it's a good meeting, we're going to end up getting peace in the pretty near future.' Trans-Atlantic discussions on Wednesday that included President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine were held to close ranks with Mr. Trump before the Friday meeting. European leaders said that they had hammered out a strategy with Mr. Trump, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a cease-fire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. Will Zelensky be there? No, Mr. Zelensky was not invited. Mr. Zelensky and European leaders have cautioned that Mr. Putin could try to drive a wedge between the United States, Ukraine and its European allies. Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that he would call Mr. Zelensky, then European leaders, after the Alaska meeting. Who else is attending? Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin are expected to meet one on one, said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. But each was bringing other officials to Alaska, including economic officials, a possible sign that their talks would extend beyond the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin said that the Russian delegation would include Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov; Yuri V. Ushakov, a foreign policy aide to Mr. Putin; Defense Minister Andrei R. Belousov; Finance Minister Anton G. Siluanov; and Kirill А. Dmitriev, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and Mr. Putin's special representative for investment and economic cooperation. The White House said that among those traveling aboard Air Force One with Mr. Trump would be Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick; the C.I.A. director, John Ratcliffe; and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump's special envoy, who has held several meetings this year with Mr. Putin.


San Francisco Chronicle
4 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
In his push for fairness in college admissions, Trump has been silent on legacy preferences
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump attempts to reshape college admissions, he's promising a new era of fairness, with an emphasis on merit and test scores and a blind eye toward diversity. Yet the Republican president's critics — and some allies — are questioning his silence on admissions policies that give applicants a boost because of their wealth or family ties. While he has pressed colleges to eliminate any possible consideration of a student's race, he has made no mention of legacy admissions, an edge given to the children of alumni, or similar preferences for the relatives of donors. Trump often rails against systems he describes as 'rigged,' but he has overlooked a glaring instance in higher education, said Richard Kahlenberg, a researcher at the Progressive Policy Institute think tank who has written about admissions. 'It's hard to think of a more flagrant way in which the system is rigged than legacy preferences,' Kahlenberg said. 'Rarely is a system of hereditary privilege so openly practiced without any sense of shame.' In recent weeks, Trump has taken several actions to scrub any vestiges of race from admissions decisions, suggesting that some schools are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action. His administration negotiated settlements with Brown and Columbia universities that included provisions to share admissions data. Last week, Trump issued a call for colleges nationwide to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions. Some are urging Trump to go further. Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., applauded the settlement with Brown requiring the university to turn a blind eye toward race — even in application essays. But 'restoring meritocracy warrants more,' said Young, who cosponsored legislation in 2023 aiming to end legacy admissions. 'Federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in arbitrary circumstances of ancestry that students have no control over, such as legacy status,' Young said on social media. Many selective colleges consider family ties Sometimes called 'affirmative action for the rich,' the practice of legacy admissions remains widespread among elite colleges even as it faces mounting bipartisan opposition. Virginia's Republican governor signed a bill last year barring legacy admissions at public institutions, following similar measures in Colorado, California and elsewhere. Some Republicans in Congress have worked with Democrats on proposals to end it nationwide. Roughly 500 universities consider legacy status when evaluating applicants, including more than half of the nation's 100 most selective U.S. schools, according to 2023 disclosures to the federal government. A few have abandoned the policy, but it remains in place at all eight Ivy League schools. Stanford University said in July it will continue considering legacy status, even after a California law barred it at institutions that receive state financial aid. Stanford opted to withdraw from the state's student financial aid program rather than end the practice. The university said it will replace the funding with internal money — even as it begins layoffs to close a $140 million budget deficit. Stanford officials declined to comment. Last year, as part of a state transparency law, the school reported that about 14% of its new students were relatives of alumni or donors. A push for merit, but no mention of legacy admissions The executive action signed by Trump last week requires universities to turn over more information about students who apply to and are accepted to their campuses. Taxpayers 'deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity' of decisions, his memorandum said, adding that more information is needed to ensure colleges are heeding the Supreme Court's decision. A week earlier, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying what it considers illegal discrimination in admissions. It takes issue not only with overt racial considerations but also 'proxies' for race, including 'geographic targeting' or personal essays asking about obstacles applicants have overcome. Similar language requiring 'merit-based' admissions policies was included in the government's resolutions with Brown and Columbia universities. None of the actions made any mention of legacy admissions. Trump's silence caught the attention of the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights, which has an open complaint with the Education Department alleging that Harvard University's use of donor and alumni preferences amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The group's 2023 complaint says the practice overwhelmingly benefits white students. If the Trump administration wants to make admissions a meritocracy, it should start by ending legacy preferences, said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director for the group. 'These deeply unmeritocratic preferences simply reward students based on who their parents are. It's hard to imagine anything more unfair or contrary to basic merit principles,' he said. Few Americans support legacy or donor preferences Colleges defend the practice by saying it builds community and encourages families to become donors. Some backers say it increasingly helps nonwhite students as campuses become more diverse. Then-President Joe Biden, a Democrat, urged colleges to rethink legacy preferences in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, saying it expanded 'privilege instead of opportunity.' Some feared it would drive up white enrollment as affirmative action ended. Georgetown University reviewed the policy but kept it in place this year after concluding the pool of legacy applicants had a similar makeup to the wider admissions pool. An AP-NORC poll in 2023 found that most Americans have a dim view of legacy and donor preferences, with few saying either should play a strong role in decisions. Universities are required to tell the federal government whether they consider legacy status, but they don't have to divulge how far it tips the scale or how many legacy students they admit. Among the 20 most selective universities that say they employ the practice, none would tell The Associated Press what percentage of their incoming class has a family connection to alumni or donors. Trump's blitz to root out racial preferences has hinged on the argument that it undermines merit. New scrutiny is needed to ensure colleges are following the Supreme Court's order and 'recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists' and other workers, he said in his executive action. That argument sends the message that minority students are 'intellectually suspect until proven otherwise,' said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor with a forthcoming book on affirmative action. He worries Trump's latest actions will intimidate colleges into limiting minority enrollment to avoid raising the suspicion of the government. 'I believe that the United States confronts a lot of problems today,' Driver said. 'Too many Black students on first-rate college campuses is not among them.'