
Dear ICE: Let detained Ukrainian couple buy their own plane tickets to safe 3rd country
Liudmyla Karnes is a Topeka, Kansas, IT specialist and Ukrainian-born naturalized U.S. citizen who loved this country long before she came here 17 years ago.
When Russia first invaded Ukraine, Karnes naturally feared for the safety of her sister and three young nieces just a few miles from the fighting — and reports of systematic rapes by soldiers — in Dnipro. So she bought them plane tickets, met them in Tijuana, Mexico, waited four days in line with them at the border, along with thousands of other Ukrainians, and accompanied them in through the port of entry in San Ysidro, California. Everyone was flying a Ukrainian flag in those days, and it was no problem bringing her loved ones to Kansas, either.
'They were welcomed with open arms,' says Karnes, not only by our government, which has granted and extended their humanitarian parole several times, most recently through October of next year, but by their new neighbors in Topeka. 'Everyone did something nice for them.' Since then, her sister has married a Ukrainian-born American serving in the U.S. military, and has applied for a green card.
Karnes' younger brother Oleksii Sechyn and his common-law wife Svitlana Zhovanik, who both have college degrees and work with computers, too, did not come from Kyiv then, though they could have. That's because Sechyn, who himself has a serious autoimmune condition, was caring for his mother, who died of cancer last year.
When Sechyn, who is 35, and Zhovanik, 32, finally did leave, they stayed first in Poland, then in France. In January, they flew to Mexico, where Karnes met them just a few days before Donald Trump was inaugurated.
Yes, the timing was terrible, but when caring for a dying parent, were they supposed to hurry? Back in Karnes' home country, 'every night they're still bombing,' she says. 'My sister and I are Oleksii's only family in the world. I have a house and a job and wanted them to be away from those horrors. I wanted him to have the wonderful opportunities I have. I wanted him to visit the beautiful places we have in the States. I wanted them to have a beautiful life together.' Of course she did.
'The handcuffs were really tight'
So at the San Luis border crossing in Arizona on Jan. 16, Karnes was with Sechyn and Zhovanik when they told border agents that they were seeking humanitarian parole — just as her sister and nieces had done three years earlier. But this time, the border agents said —understatement alert — that things had changed. Their request was denied.
Then they asked for asylum as refugees. And in response, according to Karnes, they were all handcuffed and searched. 'It was scary, and the handcuffs were really tight.' This was particularly painful for her because one of her arms is shorter than the other, and she was handcuffed behind her back.
After several hours, they released her, but said that if her brother and his wife were seeking asylum, then they would have to be detained while their case was decided. It would only be a couple of weeks max though, before they were let go, the officers at the border assured them.
That was four months ago, and they have been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities ever since — he in the Folkston ICE Processing Center in Georgia, and she in the Eloy Detention Center in Arizona. They both failed their 'credible fear' interviews that would have gotten them a fuller hearing, and their appeals of those denials failed, too.
Why anyone living in Kyiv right now would not have credible fear doesn't make sense to Karnes: 'Those missiles are hitting residential areas and hospitals; what do you mean your fear is denied?'
Her brother and his wife have no arrest record anywhere, according to the paperwork their immigration attorney prepared for ICE. In fact, they are the kind of professionals that the president says he wants to come here. Karnes has a home all ready for them, or did have. 'My main desire is for them to come and live here with me.'
But after the last four terrible months in custody, where, according to Sechyn's sister, he's fed less all the time and paid $2 for washing floors for four hours a day, they've given up on seeking asylum here. 'They're trying to break him and make him want to leave.' And they have.
All Sechyn and Zhovanik want now is to be sent to some third, neutral country that's accepting Ukrainian refugees without a visa, as most countries are.
In a statement to me sent through his sister, Sechyn said, 'We came here to ask for help and refuge, and instead they detained us and are holding us against our will for such a long time. We would like them to let us leave, or at least deport us to a third neutral country.'
His stressed-out, but very brave and loyal sister, said: 'They've made people sorry for asking for refuge in the middle of the war. How humane is that?'
'They never got that far'
On paper, Sechyn's case was closed on Feb. 14. If he were from, say, Mexico, he and his wife would have been deported back to his home country long ago. But under international law, it would be illegal to send them back to a war zone. And even if we were willing to overlook that nicety, it would be hard to do that since the airspace over Ukraine is closed.
Their New York-based lawyer, Inessa Faulkner, told me she thinks if she could get somebody at ICE to actually look at the requests she keeps filing and refiling, they'd realize that this is not another case of someone asking to be released into the United States, as so many others are. 'They are flooded with those, and I don't think they're even reading this one,' she told me. 'I encounter just this wall.' And what she hears back is — nothing at all.
Faulkner said that their expedited order of removal to Ukraine was issued on the day of their entry to the U.S. 'But the task now is, is it fair that my client was not given an alternative to discuss?' In fact, since he was never heard before an actual judge, there would have been no forum for him to raise the fact that he could and would be glad to go just about anywhere elsewhere. Since he and his wife didn't pass their 'credible fear' interviews, 'they never got that far.'
In March, someone at ICE advised Faulkner to send a letter by mail if she was serious that her clients could pay for their own way out; that letter was sent on March 26. But again, no response.
'My client is very ill, needs to get out and wants to pay for it' — for going anywhere except back into a war.
And I want someone, anyone, at ICE to read her many petitions, see that they have merit, and see that even for those for whom humanitarian concerns are footnotes, there's no reason we should keep paying to incarcerate these non-criminals who want to get on the next plane out of here at their own expense.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Rubio warns Iran if it strikes back, it will be ‘worst mistake they ever made'
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday said the US attacked Iran because it 'tried to play'' President Trump — and warned if it attempts to retaliate, it will be 'the worst mistake they ever made.'' 'That was an Iranian choice. We didn't make that choice,' Rubio told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.' Iran 'tried to play' Trump similar to how 'they've played every American president for the last 35 years,' Rubio said. 'They did by playing games with Donald Trump. They made a huge mistake. 4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio stresses Sunday that the US is not at war with Iran at the moment. FOX News 'If they retaliate, it will be the worst mistake they've ever made,' he said. 'Look, we can fly in and out of Iran at will. We went in last night. The president sent our military forces from halfway across the world, went in, conducted this operation, left and not a shot was fired against us.' Rubio noted that Trump wrote to Iran about two months ago giving Tehran 60 days to negotiate over its nuclear program. 'They use diplomacy to hide behind and obfuscate and think they can buy themselves time. They think they're cute, they're not cute, and they're not going to get away with this stuff, not under President Trump,' Rubio said. Iran has seethed at the attack on its nuclear sites — dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer' by the US — and vowed that America 'shall be held fully accountable,' without elaborating on specifics. 4 President Trump was warned Iran that there will be consequences if it retaliates. POOL/AFP via Getty Images Some analysts have speculated that Iran could fire off attacks against US bases or other military assets in the region. In 2020, Iran attacked the Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, where the US had troops stationed, in response to the killing of notorious Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. But the Israelis have significantly degraded Iran's offensive and defensive capabilities since launching Operation Rising Lion against its enemy a little more than a week ago to take out its nuclear program. 'They are completely vulnerable, completely vulnerable,' Rubio said of Iran. 'They don't control their own airspace, they can't protect their own airspace. 'They can't even protect their own leaders,' he said. 'So I think it would be a big mistake if they did anything against us. But look, they'll have to make that decision.' One potential reprisal that many experts fear is that Iran could attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz, where an estimated 20% to 25% of the world's consumed oil flows. 4 The US deployed its famous B-2 stealth bombers to drop heavy-duty 'bunker-buster' bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. 509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,' Rubio said. 'If [Iranian officials try to close the waterway], it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it.' The secretary of state stressed that 'this is not a war against Iran' and denied the US is seeking regime change with its military campaign against the theocracy. 4 All eyes are on Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to see how the brutal regime will respond to the American attacks on its three nuclear facilities. via Getty Images 'That's certainly not the goal of what we're working on here, the goal, stated very clearly in a letter the president sent the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei],' the secretary of state said. Rubio also tore into Iran's troubled history, assessing that it's 'the sole source of instability in the entire Middle East, and the world's been paying a price for this for 40-something years. 'Imagine those people having a nuclear weapon, just one, just one nuclear weapon or even the capability to being on the threshold of having a nuclear weapon,' he warned. While several neighboring countries in the Middle East have condemned the strikes, Rubio claimed that 'privately, they all agree with us that this needed to be done.' He also suggested that European powers should consider slapping sanctions on Tehran.


Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump, Iran and the known unknown
Presented by With help from Eli Okun, Bethany Irvine and Ali Bianco Good afternoon. This is Zack Stanton. Let's get straight to the news. DRIVING THE DAY OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER: In the run-up to the war in Iraq, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked in 2002 whether there was any evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was actually attempting to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. His response was evasive but memorable. '[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know,' Rumsfeld said. 'We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.' Now, one generation later, the U.S. is again in an undeclared war in the Middle East. Much about it is very different — more on that in a moment. But right now, the known unknowns vastly outnumber the known knowns, while the unknown unknowns lurk around the corner. First, the known knowns … The attack itself: Last night, U.S. forces bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities in what the Pentagon termed 'Operation Midnight Hammer.' At President Donald Trump's order, a team of B-2 bombers flew from Missouri to Iran while accompanied by fighter jets, and dropped more than a dozen 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs on two nuclear facilities. A third site was targeted with Tomahawk missiles fired from American submarines hundreds of miles away. Trump's timeline: 'Plans for the attack … were already in the works when the president said he'd decide 'within two weeks' whether to join Israel in its efforts to destroy the Islamist regime's nuclear sites,' POLITICO's Dasha Burns and colleagues report. Trump had 'privately communicated his decision' Wednesday, The Atlantic's Michael Scherer and colleagues report, and his 'within two weeks' statement was 'a feint meant to keep the Iranians off guard,' four people familiar with the planning told the outlet. The stated goal: In this, U.S. involvement in Iran is markedly different than it was in Iraq. Where the George W. Bush administration's stated goal in Iraq was not just neutralizing WMDs, but regime change, the Trump administration's stated goal in Iran is more circumspect. 'This mission was not, has not been about regime change,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a news conference this morning. 'We're not at war with Iran,' VP JD Vance added on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' (One tends to doubt that Iran will see the distinction as Vance does.) The political posturing: It is quite clear that the administration wants to avoid any sort of comparison to Iraq, a conflict that grew to be overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people and contributed to the MAGA movement's overthrow of the Republican establishment. Consider this striking pushback from Vance on 'Meet the Press': 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' Vance said. 'I understand the concern. But the difference is that back then, we had dumb presidents, and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives. So this is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing.' (The thing with war, of course, is that the other party usually also has a say in that.) Now, the known unknowns — the things we know we do not know … Just how successful the strikes were: Last night, Trump said that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated.' This morning, there's some haziness about that. NYT's Eric Schmitt cites a 'senior U.S. official' in reporting that 'the B-2 attack on the Fordo site did not destroy the heavily fortified facility but severely damaged it.' Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine said this morning that 'the three nuclear sites sustained 'severe damage,' but that it was too soon to assess whether Iran still possessed nuclear capabilities,' as POLITICO's Amy Mackinnon and colleagues report. Whether Iran will just become a new North Korea: One possibility, as NYT's David Sanger writes, is that 'Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies on Sunday morning.' Whether Iran has any interest in diplomacy: Is there still room for negotiating after the strikes? 'Not right now,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said this morning at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul, per The Times of London. Araghchi 'will travel to Moscow in the coming hours for urgent talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin,' POLITICO's Jacob Parry reports. What retaliation U.S. troops will face: 'The Iranian Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday that the large number of U.S. military bases in the region will make it hard for the American forces to entirely evade Iran's expected retaliatory strike. 'Washington has positioned itself directly on the frontlines,' the Guards said in their statement,' per Haaretz. … And how the U.S. would respond to those attacks: One scenario is laid out in an odd-bedfellows WaPo op-ed by Matthew Duss and Sohrab Ahmari: 'Attacks on U.S. bases would require the United States to respond in kind. And there we'd have it: another big Mideast war, unfolding amid the American public's exhaustion with wars in the region. … And yet another generation of U.S. service members would devote their lives to unnecessary conflict.' What retaliation the U.S. homeland will face: U.S. officials are concerned about cyberattacks, 'including targeting the banking system or energy grid,' report ABC's Pierre Thomas and Josh Margolin. What retaliation the region will face: 'The former commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, Gen. Mohsen Rezaei, who has a seat at Iran's Supreme National Security Council, warned on state television hours before the attack that if Mr. Trump entered the war, Iran would strike at American military bases, blow up naval mines in the Persian Gulf and move to close the Strait of Hormuz,' per NYT's Farnaz Fassihi. This morning, the Iranian parliament suggested choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a decision which, if followed through on, will likely send oil prices upward. What Russia will do: Perhaps the most frightening prospect that's crossed our transom this morning comes from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. 'The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue,' he posted on X. 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' How seriously should we take that idea? Medvedev has become something of an online troll in recent years, predicting, among other things, that the U.S. would devolve into civil war and that Elon Musk would be elected president despite being constitutionally ineligible. And it's unclear exactly how much weight to put on this idea. 'I don't know that that guy speaks for President Putin or the Russian government,' Vance said when asked about it on ABC's 'This Week,' going on to reiterate that Russia has 'been very consistent that they don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.' What Congress will do: Republicans on the Hill broadly have voiced adamant support for the Iran strikes. It's not so much that they've fallen in line as that they are heartened by the action, which many Republicans have advocated for years. But there are some Republicans voicing concerns: 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said on X shortly after Trump announced the strike. Similar remarks came from Warren Davidson (R-Ohio): 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' he said before Trump's speech. And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an ardent MAGA loyalist, posted that this 'is not our fight.' … Those voices, however, are the exception among Republicans. As Playbook's Adam Wren wrote on Friday: 'What 'MAGA civil war'?' And they're joined by a number of Democrats: With the exception of heterodox Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who was supportive of the strikes, Democrats fall into a few factions on this. There are those, like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who questioned the constitutionality of the attack and called for an immediate vote on a war powers resolution. (More from Khanna on this week's episode of 'The Conversation with Dasha Burns.') There are those, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who called the strikes 'grounds for impeachment.' And there are the party's foreign policy and national security mandarins, like Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Intel Dems, neither of whom were reportedly told in advance about the attack despite being in the so-called Gang of Eight. Warner, speaking at a gala in Virginia last night, said it was easier to get into a war in the Middle East than to get out of one, per Virginia Public Media's Jahd Khalil. What the American public will think: For precisely the reason Warner stated above, military action in the Middle East can prove popular in the short term but sour over time. Bush and Rumsfeld found that out in Iraq, which started with 70-plus percent approval at its outset, but whose unpopularity meant the Bush administration ended in tatters. Who'd have guessed in 2002 or 2003 that the uber-popular war in Iraq would, a few years later, be so unpopular that it propelled a freshman senator from Illinois to defeat the Clinton machine in the 2008 Democratic primaries, and put him in the White House? Or, in time, that it would help fuel a populist uprising on the right that a billionaire TV star so effectively harnessed on his own path to 1600 Penn? The Iran strikes may prove to be an unmitigated success. But at this early moment, we cannot know. One thing that is certain: the world that follows will be different in ways we cannot imagine. And that is the unknown unknown. SUNDAY BEST … — Vance on the latest communications and the possibility of negotiations, on 'Meet the Press': 'We have received some indirect messages from the Iranians. … The president has said he wants now to engage in a diplomatic process. But if the Iranians are not going to play ball here, they didn't leave as many options as it pertains to last night, and they won't leave as many options in the future.' — Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on Trump's decision, on 'Fox News Sunday': 'The Senate has already ruled that the 2001 AUMF does not cover action against Iran … It's clear that there is no congressional authorization for Trump's war against Iran. And I have filed a resolution that I think will get a vote later this week. … Look, America was lied into a war in 2002 against Iraq with a Republican administration giving us false information about Iraq's weapons program. I have grave concern that we're going down the same path. Donald Trump's own national security officials have stated that Iran was not close to having a nuclear weapon.' — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Trump's authority, on NBC's 'Meet the Press': 'He was within his Article II authority. Congress can declare war or cut off funding. We can't be the commander-in-chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs. … He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution.' — Israeli President Isaac Herzog on whether Israel has dragged the U.S. into war, on CNN's 'State of the Union': 'We are leaving it to the decision of the head of — the president of the United States and his team, because it had to do with America's national security interest, period. We are not intending and we don't ask for America now to go to war because the Iranians are threatening Israel. The decision was taken because the Iranian nuclear program was a clear and present danger to the security interests of all of the free world.' SUNDAY AFTERNOON VIEWING: Khanna is one of the Democratic Party's key progressive voices, but he has no problem picking fights with his fellow Democrats or aligning himself with conservatives when he sees common ground. 'I'm kind of blunt-spoken. I say what's on my mind,' he tells Playbook's Dasha Burns on this week's episode of 'The Conversation,' out now on YouTube. Their wide-ranging interview is worth a watch. Here are some excerpts that jumped out to us … On Musk: 'Elon Musk is an American tragedy. He could have been Bill Knudsen. You know, Bill Knudsen was this GM executive who comes with FDR and leads the war production board. And we go from making 1,000 planes a year to 300,000 planes. And Musk could have come into government and worked with labor and worked with the industry and government to reindustrialize parts of America. Instead, he came into government and started firing veterans.' On Democrats' problems with young men: 'Instead of doing $20 million studies to understand how to win young men — with no substance — and hiring more consultants, what we ought to learn is that we should have substantive positions that speak to people. One of the things young men don't want is another war overseas. … One of the things we can do is to take on the foreign policy establishment in this country that got us into an Iraq War that kept us in Afghanistan for 20 years … We see this story time and again.' (Editor's note: the interview was conducted before the strike on Iran.) On Steve Bannon's fondness for him: 'He diagnosed one thing absolutely correctly, and that was that we shafted a lot of people who built America. People in so many community towns, factory towns, where we had 90,000 factories close. You have five trillion-dollar companies in my district …. You can't have a country that has that kind of prosperity in a few places and the rest of the places [are] deindustrialized and dependent on federal resources.' TOP-EDS: A roundup of the week's must-read opinion pieces. 9 THINGS FOR YOUR RADAR 1. KEITH KELLOGG GETS RESULTS: Belarus released and pardoned 14 prisoners, including top opposition figure Siarhei Tsikhanouski, after Trump's special envoy met with President Alexander Lukashenko, Reuters' Andrius Sytas and Mark Trevelyan report. It's 'the most significant move so far' by Lukashenko 'to try to ease his isolation from the West.' Family members of the released, along with the government in Minsk, credited the Trump administration with helping to achieve the deal. The U.S. hopes Kellogg's Lukashenko meeting could also be a step toward peace in Ukraine. 2. BANNED AID: 'Missteps, Confusion and 'Viral Waste': The 14 Days That Doomed U.S.A.I.D.,' by NYT's Christopher Flavelle and colleagues: 'A New York Times examination found that Trump administration officials came to U.S.A.I.D. with no plan to dismantle the agency, at least not so quickly. Instead, that decision emerged day by day, marked by rash demands, shock and confusion. It culminated with a tense showdown 10 days after Mr. Trump's inauguration, in which agency employees defied orders from Elon Musk … The decision to end U.S.A.I.D. brought deadly consequences. But the events leading to that moment can be traced in part to a particularly banal cause: a confusingly worded directive from Mr. Trump.' 3. RECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES: 'Byrd bath' arguments will take place today for the Senate parliamentarian to determine which pieces of the Finance Committee's crucial reconciliation bill text meet the chamber's budget rules. Breaking overnight, the parliamentarian said a surprising yes to a 10-year ban on state regulations of artificial intelligence, per POLITICO's Anthony Adragna, and no to a provision limiting judges' ability to issue preliminary injunctions against the government, per Senate Budget Dems. Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if Republicans use their 'current policy baseline' gimmick, the tax legislation would cost only $441 billion, per POLITICO's Benjamin Guggenheim. And ICYMI, that all follows the parliamentarian's major decision to jettison a plan to foist some SNAP costs onto states, which left the GOP scrambling yesterday to fill the budgetary hole from losing those cuts, per AP's Lisa Mascaro. More notable reads diving into the bill: 4. TRADING PLACES: 'EU Frets Over US Demands in Trade Talks It Sees as Unbalanced,' by Bloomberg's Alberto Nardelli and Jorge Valero: 'Among Washington's requests are measures relating to quotas for fish exports that EU officials say may be incompatible with World Trade Organization rules; tariff-related moves that aren't mutual; and a series of demands on economic security described by the officials from the bloc as far-fetched, said the people … Many of US President Donald Trump's tariffs would stay even in the event of a deal.' 5. TOO MANY COOKS: Countries trying to negotiate trade deals with the U.S. have struggled to balance Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer, who are often perceived as 'working at cross purposes,' POLITICO's Daniel Desrochers and colleagues report. Greer knows more technical details but is less close to Trump. Bessent leads Asian discussions, but Lutnick oversees auto tariffs that are crucial to, say, Japan. It has all left foreign negotiators confused. But the administration insists the officials are all on the same page. 6. THE BUZZ: 'Bees are in trouble – and the federal lab researching them could close,' by WaPo's Ruby Mellen and Salwan Georges in Laurel, Maryland: 'The Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal calls for the defunding of the bee lab and other federally funded wildlife research efforts. Bracing for these cuts, priorities have shifted for … the lab, which has collected and identified more than 1 million specimens of pollinators, hundreds of thousands of which are slotted away in its modest walls. Active field work is on pause. No new research projects have begun.' 7. TWO DAYS TO GO: Frontrunner Andrew Cuomo picked up another big endorsement ahead of Tuesday's NYC Democratic mayoral primary: Bill Clinton, NYT's Emma Fitzsimmons reports. Clinton's robocall for Cuomo, who served as his HUD secretary, could give Cuomo a boost with older Dems, as much — but certainly not all — of the Democratic establishment gets behind the disgraced former governor's comeback. Related read: POLITICO's Jonathan Martin dives into the national implications of what looks to be a race between Cuomo and progressive Zohran Mamdani, in which both ends of the Democratic spectrum see a path for the party out of the wilderness. 8. RACE TO NOVEMBER: Virginia's top Democratic statewide nominees kicked off a joint bus tour yesterday as the sprint to the general election begins, emphasizing pocketbook issues and protections for federal workers, WaPo's Laura Vozzella and Gregory Schneider report. Abigail Spanberger will campaign in largely blue spots for the next week. Republicans kept things quieter: Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears hasn't made public any campaign events, though her team says she'll visit several areas this week. Chris LaCivita led a fundraiser for AG Jason Miyares on Friday night. 9. THE END OF THE POST-NIXON ERA: 'Trump undermines Watergate laws in massive shift of ethics system,' by WaPo's Naftali Bendavid: 'Trump [is taking] aim at post-Watergate reforms on transparency, spending, conflicts of interest and more. By challenging and disregarding, in letter or in spirit, this slew of 1970s laws, Trump is essentially closing the 50-year post-Watergate chapter of American history — and ushering in a new era of shaky guardrails and blurred separation of powers.' TALK OF THE TOWN IN MEMORIAM — 'Former U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold of Corpus Christi dies at 63,' by The Texas Tribune's Kayla Guo: 'A software policy expert, lawyer and quieter member of the Texas delegation, Farenthold … served on the Oversight, Judiciary and Transportation committees. … His efforts included a $625 million channel deepening project for the Port of Corpus Christi. … Farenthold's time in Washington came to a fraught end in April 2018, when he resigned from Congress amid allegations of sexual harassment, an ethics investigation and pressure from the Republican leadership to step down.' TRANSITION — Dipka Bhambhani is now a senior adviser at the EPA. She is an ExxonMobil and U.S. Energy Association alum and a longtime senior energy contributor to Forbes. HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) … Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) … Sam Cornale … AP's Jill Colvin … Carson Daly … Uber's Michael Falconel … Pia Carusone … ICANN's Carlos Reyes … Nate Sizemore … Alisha Sud … Lauren Weiner of the ACLU … Brit Hume … Herald Group's Steven Smith … Dana Harris … Brian Doherty … Adam Sabes … McLean Piner of Rep. Greg Murphy's (R-N.C.) office … Brian Rel Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here. Send Playbookers tips to playbook@ or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton, deputy Garrett Ross and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath.


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Food and Drug Administration staff cuts may hinder US biomedical innovation
President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's economic and strategic independence — from reshoring pharmaceutical production to cutting regulatory red tape. But not all reforms are created equal. Recent restructuring efforts at the Food and Drug Administration may have been well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the very innovation and domestic capacity the president seeks to promote. In March, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the agency, which in part included the elimination of 3,500 full-time employees at the Food and Drug Administration — many of them senior scientific staff and experienced regulators who served as institutional pillars across drug review divisions. While we all support government efficiency and the secretary's efforts to create a gold-standard regulatory agency, the loss of this institutional memory risks hobbling the expedited pathways that small biotech firms rely on to deliver therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, the impact of these cuts is not theoretical. The Wall Street Journal has reported that some biotech firms have had to delay or cancel clinical trials due to lack of timely Food and Drug Administration guidance. One California biotech firm facing unpredictable delays has even turned to European regulators to move forward with a clinical trial — effectively offshoring American capital, investment and jobs. Others have reported receiving conflicting and confusing feedback from inexperienced FDA staff or no response at all on time-sensitive requests. But such issues don't just affect companies; they hurt patients, too. Innovation in gene therapies, cancer immunotherapies, and treatments for rare diseases depend on regulatory clarity and speed. Without senior staff to help clarify agency positions, decisions are either delayed or driven by less-experienced personnel unfamiliar with long-standing scientific standards. It's no surprise then that over 200 biotech CEOs, patient advocates and investors — many of them strong supporters of FDA modernization — have expressed their concerns in a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). As a former member of Congress who sat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA, I have long supported targeted reforms to make the agency more nimble and responsive. But there is a fine line between streamlining operations and cutting the institutional capacity necessary to do the job. Removing experienced drug reviewers before an adequate backup plan can be put into place not only jeopardizes U.S. safety standards but also undermines our competitive edge. This matter is not merely a domestic problem; it's a global race. Since 2014, the number of biomedical drugs under development in China has grown twelvefold. Meanwhile, innovation in the U.S. has remained relatively flat. If trends continue, China could match or surpass the U.S. in biomedical innovation within the decade. We have seen this movie before — in semiconductors, in telecommunications, in clean energy. We cannot afford to let biotech go the same way. The Trump administration's tariff policy was designed to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. shores. But how can we expect capital to stay in the U.S. if our regulatory infrastructure cannot deliver? Delays and unpredictability at the FDA don't just slow down science — they push investors to look elsewhere. Even the user fee system — critical to funding timely drug reviews and a source of government revenue — has been impacted by the reduction in force. Staff who oversaw the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have been laid off, raising questions about whether the agency will even be able to continue to collect user fees and whether these government cuts will actually end up costing taxpayers in the long run. Of course, Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for health reform. His Make America Healthy Again agenda's focus on combatting chronic diseases and enhancing nutritional standards deserves attention. His focus for such reform is where his background and passion can lead to meaningful improvements. But when it comes to regulating complex biologics and therapeutics, we must be careful about taking actions that could inadvertently stymie scientific progress. President Trump's vision for American self-reliance will only succeed if it's built on a foundation of regulatory competence and stability. Swift actions should therefore be taken to restore the FDA's core functions, rehire critical staff and unfreeze the hiring of roles essential to America's leadership in biomedical science. The stakes — for patients, for innovation and for national security — are simply too high to ignore. John T. Doolittle is a former member of Congress who served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.