
Abandoning our Afghan allies is a moral and strategic mistake
It is a bad time for thousands of Afghans who risked their lives helping the U.S. over the past two decades.
On June 2, it was announced that the office that helps with relocation of Afghans who helped America will close on July 1.
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security formally ended Temporary Protected Status for roughly 10,000 Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban's return to power in 2021. Under the new directive, Afghan nationals currently residing in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status have just under six weeks to leave, setting a deadline of July 14. Most of these Afghans are waiting for the backlog to clear to get the Special Immigrant Visa that was promised to them because of the help they provided the U.S. since its 2001 invasion.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.' Yet, only days later, the State Department included Afghan citizens on a new 'travel ban' list due to deteriorating security situation and threat of terrorism from that country, contradicting what Noem and her department had claimed.
Anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since the Taliban's return knows that it is not safe. The country has collapsed into an economic and humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda has reestablished its position, operating training camps and safe houses across the country. According to a recent U.N. report, Afghanistan is now a 'permissive environment' for al Qaeda consolidation. Meanwhile, the Afghan branch of the so-called Islamic State has never been stronger.
Girls cannot attend school beyond grade six. Women cannot work or even leave their homes without permission from a male relative. Ethnic and religious minorities continue to face persecution. The Taliban are hunting down Afghans who worked with the U.S. and its allies — often with deadly consequences. The claim that Afghanistan is now 'safe' is false.
This issue is tricky for the Trump administration. In February 2020, President Trump reached a deal with the Taliban that planted the seed for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021. That agreement set in motion the Taliban's return to power.
When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he had the chance to cancel the deal, but he did not. By July, most U.S. and allied troops had left. On August 15, the Taliban seized Kabul. By Sept. 11, 2021 — the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — they controlled more of Afghanistan than they had on that tragic day in 2001. Both presidents share the blame.
In the chaotic withdrawal, the U.S. left behind an estimated $7 billion in military equipment — most of which is now in Taliban hands or circulating on the regional black market.
But the greater cost has been moral: the abandonment of tens of thousands of Afghans who served alongside American forces. Many of these men and women risked their lives for U.S. forces as interpreters, engineers, medics and contractors. For them, the Taliban's return is not just a change of government — it's a death sentence.
Given the chaos the Biden administration allowed at America's southern border, it might be tempting to fold the Afghan resettlement issue into the broader immigration debate. But that approach would be both lazy and strategically short-sighted. Afghanistan and the broader regions of Central and South Asia will remain central to U.S. counterterrorism and foreign policy for the foreseeable future, and pretending otherwise is naive.
There are four clear strategic reasons why helping Afghans who aided the U.S. is not only just but smart.
First, honoring our commitment to Afghan partners sends a powerful message to future allies. In every modern conflict, American forces have relied on local partners for on-the-ground support. That pattern will almost certainly continue. If local partners believe the U.S. won't protect them when the fight is over, they will be far less willing to take that risk, which would weaken America's global reach and credibility.
Second, Afghans already in the U.S. represent a critical talent pool. Many are trained linguists and cultural experts. During the two-decade U.S. mission in Afghanistan, they filled roles that no one else could. Yet in November 2023, Defense Language Institute ceased instruction in Pashto, one of Afghanistan's national languages. Should the U.S. again need Pashto speakers or regional experts, the Afghan American community will be indispensable.
Third, these Afghans could help shape a post-Taliban Afghanistan. After 2001, the Afghan American diaspora was key to rebuilding the country. The current Taliban regime is fractured and unlikely to maintain control indefinitely. Offering refuge to educated, professionally trained Afghans bolsters U.S. capacity now and supports future stabilization efforts.
Fourth, Afghan immigrants provide indirect humanitarian aid via remittances. In 2019, remittances made up 4.4 percent of Afghanistan's GDP. Since late 2021, the U.S. Treasury has allowed Afghans here to send money home despite sanctions. These remittances reduce the burden on American taxpayers and support Afghan families in crisis.
Beyond these strategic benefits, there is the moral argument. Doing right by those who stood with America is a matter of national honor. The way a nation treats its allies — especially when they are vulnerable — says everything about its values. These Afghans risked everything for us. Abandoning them now is a betrayal.
Trump began the withdrawal process. Biden finished it. Now, Trump has a rare second chance to do the right thing. His administration can correct a serious moral and strategic failure by reversing the decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Afghan nationals and instead prioritizing their protection.
Rather than forcing them to leave, the U.S. should expedite visa processing and safe relocation for Afghan allies. This isn't just about compassion — it's about keeping our word, protecting our interests and preparing for the future.
Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
Hashtags

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

Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Senate Republicans hold hearing on Biden's mental fitness as Democrats boycott
WASHINGTON — Nearly six months after Joe Biden left the White House, Senate Republicans are still scrutinizing his presidency, kicking off the first in what's expected to be a series of congressional hearings this year on his mental fitness in office. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee brought in three witnesses Wednesday — none of whom served in Biden's administration — to scrutinize his time in office, arguing that the former president, his staff and the media must be held accountable. Democrats boycotted the hearing and criticized Republicans for 'armchair-diagnosing' Biden when the committee could be looking into serious matters. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who co-chaired the hearing, said that they will aim to 'shine a light on exactly what went on in the White House during Biden's presidency.' 'We simply cannot ignore what transpired because President Biden is no longer in office,' Cornyn said. A spokesperson for Biden declined to comment on the hearing. It was the first in what could be several hearings about Biden in the coming months. Over in the House, the Oversight Committee has subpoenaed several of Biden's former staff members, along with his White House doctor, ordering him to testify at a June 27 hearing 'as part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden's cognitive decline.' Questions about Biden's age and fitness erupted in the summer after his disastrous performance in a debate against Republican challenger Donald Trump, which ultimately led to the Democrat's withdrawal from the race. Even after Trump won back the presidency in November, Republicans have continued to hammer on Biden's age, citing in part new reporting about Biden that was published this year. Trump now alleges that Biden administration officials may have forged the former president's signature and taken sweeping actions without his knowledge, though he provided no evidence of that happening. Trump has ordered lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department to investigate. Republicans played clips during the hearing Wednesday of Democrats defending Biden. In the montage, the Democrats talk about how Biden was mentally sharp when he was in office. 'Most Democrats on this committee have chosen to all but boycott the hearing and have failed to call a single witness,' Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said. 'They have chosen to ignore this issue, like they ignored President Biden's decline.' Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee's top Democrat, criticized Republicans for holding a hearing on the last president at a time when there are 'numerous critical challenges facing the nation that are under our jurisdiction.' 'Apparently armchair-diagnosing former President Biden is more important than the issues of grave concern,' said Durbin of Illinois. After his opening remarks, Durbin played a video montage of his own — but with clips of Trump speaking that he said reflected the 'cognitive ability' of the current president. Durbin left the hearing after his opening remarks. Three witnesses testified: former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, former White House official Theodore Wold and University of Virginia law professor John Harrison. Spicer and Wold both served under Trump. Much of the focus was on Biden's alleged use of an autopen. Trump has repeated long-standing allegations that the Biden White House relied on an autopen to sign presidential pardons, executive orders and other key documents, claiming that its use cast doubt on their validity. Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) also questioned Spicer on 'what mechanisms should we put in place' to hold the media accountable 'for not actually following what is clearly in front of them.' Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors see quick stock market drop if US joins Israel-Iran conflict
By Noel Randewich (Reuters) -Financial markets may be in for a "knee-jerk" selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by President Donald Trump's tariffs. Oil prices fell nearly 2% on Wednesday as investors weighed the chance of supply disruptions from the Israel-Iran conflict and potential direct U.S. involvement. The price of crude remains up almost 9% since Israel launched attacks against Iran last Friday in a bid to cripple its ability to produce nuclear weapons. With major U.S. stock indexes trading near record highs despite uncertainty about Trump's trade policy, some investors worry that equities may be particularly vulnerable to sources of additional global uncertainty. Chuck Carlson, chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services, said U.S. stocks might initially sell off should Trump order the U.S. military to become more heavily involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, but that a faster escalation might also bring the situation to an end sooner. "I could see the initial knee-jerk would be, 'this is bad'," Carlson said. "I think it will bring things to a head quicker." Wednesday's dip in crude, along with a modest 0.3% increase in the S&P 500, came after Trump declined to answer reporters' questions about whether the U.S. was planning to strike Iran but said Iran had proposed to come for talks at the White House. Adding to uncertainty, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected Trump's demand for unconditional surrender. U.S. Treasury yields fell as concerns over the war in Iran boosted safe haven demand for the debt. The U.S. military is also bolstering its presence in the region, Reuters reported, further stirring speculation about U.S. intervention that investors fear could widen the conflict in an area with critical energy resources, supply chains and infrastructure. With investors viewing the dollar as a safe haven, it has gained around 1% against both the Japanese yen and Swiss franc since last Thursday. On Wednesday, the U.S. currency took a breather, edging fractionally lower against the yen and the franc. 'I don't think personally that we are going to join this war. I think Trump is going to do everything possible to avoid it. But if it can't be avoided, then initially that's going to be negative for the markets,' said Peter Cardillo, Chief Market Economist at Spartan Capital Securities in New York. "Gold would shoot up. Yields would probably come down lower and the dollar would probably rally." Barclays warned that crude prices could rise to $85 per barrel if Iranian exports are reduced by half, and that prices could rise about $100 in the "worst case" scenario of a wider conflagration. Brent crude was last at about $76. Citigroup economists warned in a note on Wednesday that materially higher oil prices "would be a negative supply shock for the global economy, lowering growth and boosting inflation—creating further challenges for central banks that are already trying to navigate the risks from tariffs." Trump taking a "heavier hand" would not be a surprise to the market, mitigating any negative asset price reaction, Carlson said, while adding that he was still not convinced that the U.S. would take a heavier role. Trades on the Polymarket betting website point to a 63% expectation of "U.S. military action against Iran before July", down from as much as an 82% likelihood on Tuesday, but still above a 35% chance before the conflict began last Friday. The S&P 500 energy sector index has rallied over 2% in the past four sessions, lifted by a 3.8% gain in Exxon Mobil and 5% rally in Valero Energy. That compares to a 0.7% drop in the S&P 500 over the same period, reflecting investor concerns about the impact of higher oil prices on the economy, and about growing global uncertainty generated by the conflict. Turmoil in the Middle East comes as investors are already fretting about the effect of Trump's tariffs on the global economy. The World Bank last week slashed its global growth forecast for 2025 by four-tenths of a percentage point to 2.3%, saying that higher tariffs and heightened uncertainty posed a "significant headwind" for nearly all economies. Defense stocks, already lifted by Russia's conflict with Ukraine, have made modest gains since Israel launched its attacks. The S&P 500 Aerospace and Defense index hit record highs early last week in the culmination of a rebound of over 30% from losses in the wake of Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" tariff announcements. Even after the latest geopolitical uncertainty, the S&P 500 remains just 2% below its February record high close. "Investors want to be able to look past this, and until we see reasons to believe that this is going to be a much larger regional conflict with the U.S. perhaps getting involved and a high chance of escalating, you're going to see the market want to shrug this off as much as it can,' Osman Ali, global co-head of Quantitative Investment Strategies, said at an investor conference on Wednesday.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Iran War Talk Testing His Ties With MAGA Loyalists
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump's hints that he may dispatch the US military to help Israel destroy Iran's nuclear program has spurred a revolt from his typically faithful America First base, further dividing a party already struggling to unite around the president's second-term agenda. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads How E-Scooters Conquered (Most of) Europe Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Trump continues to be non-committal on what he'll ultimately decide, but his rhetoric toward Iran has grown more belligerent in the six days since Israel launched its offensive — pushing the US closer to involvement in a foreign war. That's firmly at odds with a central tenet of Trump's own 'Make America Great Again' movement, fashioned during his political ascent amid voter frustration with decades of US military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump sharpened his anti-war stance during the 2024 election as he hit President Joe Biden over the haphazard US withdrawal from Afghanistan and pledged to avoid conflicts overseas. As recently as last month — and speaking in the Middle East, where he's currently building up US forces for potential engagement — Trump lambasted the US 'neocons' for the wars they fought in the region. He said he wants the Mideast to be a place 'where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.' Now, as Trump agitates on Iran, the intra-MAGA fault lines are deepening. Trump and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson have traded barbs over the 'America First' doctrine as the former Fox News host calls for the US to steer clear of the Israel-Iran conflict. Laura Loomer, a right-wing social media influencer and staunch Trump supporter, jumped into the fray in Trump's defense. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has long pushed for a US attack on Iran, said that he's spoken to Trump and urged him to act. Graham played down the GOP divide, saying 90% of Republicans support Trump helping Israel and most Americans believe stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions is 'absolutely essential,' even if it involves the use of force. Graham's numbers, however, may be overly optimistic. Even as half of Americans view Iran as an enemy of the US, some 60% say that the US shouldn't get involved militarily in the Israeli war, according to a YouGov poll conducted between June 13 and June 16. That includes 53% of of Republicans, the poll showed. In a sign of how Trump is in some ways talking himself into the war — or at least rationalizing the option to do so — he's increasingly pointing to his long-held position that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. While Trump himself during his first term pulled out of a global agreement aimed at ensuring that Iran can't get atomic bombs, he's cast the prospect that it might do so as an existential threat to the US and its allies alike. Vice President JD Vance, a Marine Corps veteran who's also advocated for a more isolationist US, has pointed to Trump's consistency on the topic as he seeks to defend his boss against the base. The president acknowledged the split among Republicans in response to reporters' questions Wednesday morning on the White House lawn. 'So I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy,' Trump said. 'And I have people outside of the base who can't believe that this is happening, they're so happy.' Later, Trump told reporters that Carlson had called him. The president said that the commentator wanted to apologize for his language and said he believed Carlson on some level accepted the argument that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. He also dismissed the notion the flap could divide his base. 'My supporters are for me. My supporters are America first,' Trump said. Steve Bannon, a longtime Trump ally and early disciple of Trump's populist doctrine, said there's no urgency for the US to join Israel's campaign as it already succeeded in gaining control of Iranian airspace. He said that American involvement should be determined by US intelligence and not Israel's, and he stressed several times that this is Israel's fight to finish. But even as Trump's base bristles at the notion of the president taking the US into a war, Bannon said he'll ultimately retain support. 'The MAGA movement, the Marjorie Taylor Greene's, Matt Gaetz, we will fight it up until the end to make sure he's got the full information. But if he has more intelligence and makes that case to the American people, the MAGA movement will support President Trump,' Bannon said. Tumult in the Middle East has driven oil prices higher. Under the most extreme scenario, should the US join Israel in the strikes and the Strait of Hormuz is shut, crude could surge past $130 a barrel, weigh on the global economy and drive up consumer prices, according to a Bloomberg Economics analysis. The debate between Trump allies calling for US involvement in the conflict and those urging him to steer clear was encapsulated in a recorded exchange between Carlson and Ted Cruz for Carlson's show. Carlson stumped Cruz on a question about Iran's population, saying that it's an important metric to know for anyone agitating for war with a country. Cruz, who spoke to Trump about Iran over the weekend, on Wednesday told reporters he doesn't envision US troops on the ground in Iran, but suggested a limited bombing strike to take out a nuclear weapons facility could be on the table for Trump. 'And if he does so, it will make Americans substantially safer,' Cruz said. The political ramifications will play out in Congress, either as part of the ongoing push-and-pull over executive branch powers or with the looming 2026 midterm election cycle. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to authorize war, but lawmakers have ceded that power to the president for more than two decades. The last authorization for use of military force approved by Congress was in 2002 for the Iraq war, and that came back to bite lawmakers politically. Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat, has introduced legislation that would force a vote on any US war with Iran. He was joined in the House by Republican Thomas Massie, who has already publicly sparred with Trump over the president's legislative agenda. Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged the ideological split within his party and defended Trump's war powers, signaling he doesn't intend to take up Kaine's bill anytime soon. 'We have people in our party, as you know, that have different views about America's role in the world,' Thune said. 'But I think the president is well within his authority, understands what's at stake in insuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon, and will do everything he can to protect America and American interests.' (Updates to include Trump remarks on Carlson in paragraphs 13-14. A previous version of this story corrected spelling of Marjorie Taylor Greene's name and that the Cruz-Carlson exchange took place on Carlson's platform.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.