Lawmakers debate using taxpayer funds for migrant aid at border hearing
WASHINGTON,, July 16 (UPI) -- A fiery House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday exposed deep partisan divisions over the role of non-governmental organizations in aiding migrants.
Republicans accused faith-based and humanitarian groups of enabling illegal immigration, while Democrats sharply criticized holding the session as a political stunt that targeted religious freedom.
The hearing marked an escalation in the Republican-led effort to scrutinize the role of non-governmental organizations in federal immigration policy.
GOP lawmakers argued that groups receiving taxpayer dollars are contributing to what they called a historic border crisis by providing services to undocumented migrants who are not being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Conversely, Democrats vehemently argued that the purpose of the hearing was a politically motivated attempt to discredit humanitarian organizations.
Led by Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., the hearing centered on claims that the former Biden administration created the "worst border crisis in history," and that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, along with other organizations supported by tax dollars, are paying for hotels for immigrants' stays instead of utilizing detention centers.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sternly pushed back, accusing the majority of vilifying groups that serve vulnerable populations and abusing congressional power to intimidate those driven by missions to assist immigrants. He also criticized the majority's witnesses, whom he said represented only one side of the issue.
"Today's hearing are shameful abuses of congressional power to bully people for how they choose to exercise their religion and help their own name, " said Thompson, who entered into the record a letter from more than 600 nonprofits opposed to the hearing.
In addition, a staffer showed a chart showing the committee's Republicans who have voted in favor of NGO funding, including Reps. Clay Higgins, R-La., Michael McCaul, R-Texas, August Pfluger, R-Texas and the committee chairman, Mark Green, R-Tenn.
Thompson criticized Green for not being present at his final full committee hearing. He announced his retirement announcement in June, effective Sunday.
To support their arguments, Republicans invited three witnesses critical of the Biden administration's immigration approach and the role of non-governmental organizations. Their testimony, at times emotional and combative, prompted sharp responses from Democrats on the panel.
Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation, opened with an ardent statement related to violence against ICE officers.
The Oversight Project "works to expose and root out corruption in government, among elected officials, and in our most influential organizations to ensure power resides with the American people," according to the Heritage Foundation's website.
"The violence is getting out of control, and it is fueled by demagoguery of politicians, whether it is one of your members telling Axios that there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the public," Howell said. "Another saying stability is important to prepare for violence, or even a member of this committee being arrested for forcibly impeding or interfering with federal officials."
Thompson said he interpreted Howell's statement to be outside of the scope of the hearing, and the issue was put to a vote. The committee decided 9-8 in favor of Howell's continued testimony.
The other two witnesses were Ali Hopper, founder and president of GUARD Against Trafficking, an organization whose mission is to combat human trafficking, and Julio Rosas, a national correspondent for Blaze Media, a U.S. conservative media company.
Hopper focused on the harms to children within the immigration system and questioned the accountability of nonprofit organizations, while Rosas echoed Republican concerns, arguing that while NGOs aim to help, they may unintentionally worsen situations.
The hearing took an unexpected turn late in the session when Thompson criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for her recent online presence, referencing her controversial personal posts and past statements. He drew a sharp comparison between Noem's actions and the deportation of vulnerable migrants, including a child with cancer.
Thompson, in a motion, wanted to subpoena Noem given the committee's broader oversight efforts. Republicans quickly moved to table the motion in a non-debatable vote, which passed by a narrow margin.
Summing up the session, Guest said, "I am offended when people from the other side say we're not being Christian. we're not saying that all nonprofits are bad. Many of us support and give money and volunteer."
"But, this hearing today is focused on those nonprofits which were government funded, which were used by the Biden-Harris administration to continue to move people across the border against the will of the public and without the authorization of Congress."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
18 minutes ago
- UPI
Tariffs, uncertainty 'paralyzing' for farmers
July 22 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump's tariff negotiations have the agriculture industry facing uncertainty and soybean farmers are among those most affected. The price of soybeans continues to decline while the cost of growing rises. The United States has lost its footing in the global soybean market, due in part to Trump's tariff policies during his first term. Current trade negotiations have some in the industry asking for assurances. "When there's uncertainty in the market it's paralyzing," Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association and ninth-generation farmer, told UPI. "It tends to make people, when in doubt, do nothing. Don't buy, don't invest." Soybeans are the largest single agriculture commodity exported by the United States. China is the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans but the share of the crop it purchases has declined significantly since Trump placed tariffs on the country in 2018, according to the University of Illinois' Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics. Prior to that, about a third of its soybeans were imported from the United States. Tariffs caused China to look elsewhere for soybean imports, dragging down the price of U.S. soybeans. Brazil has been the beneficiary of this change, upping its share of the Chinese soybean market from about 45% to about 70% and raising its prices. The United States accounts for about a 20%-25% share of Chinese soybean imports. One reason that China is crucial to the soybean market is that it raises more pigs than any other country. The soybean is a key source of protein in livestock feed. The largest soybean producing states are Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. China has routinely had about a 3% tariff on U.S. soybean imports. The effective tariff is now 23% in response to tariffs imposed by Trump earlier this year. "We lost our number one market for ag exports overnight," Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, told UPI. Glauber is the former chief economist for the USDA. He served in the role for 22 of his 30 years with the USDA. Among his responsibilities was operating as the chief ag negotiator. "When I was the chief negotiator, that was in the context of WTO negotiations, which are really textual -- arguing over wording in documents," Glauber said. "What the Trump administration has been talking about are these framework documents with no details. It's a very different thing to think about. These things aren't very longterm, unlike the [North American Free Trade Agreement]. Those are long-running agreements." Tariffs have always been a negotiating tool, Glauber said, but for decades the United States has worked to reduce tariffs. Multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, created mechanisms for trade partners to resolve disputes and maintain relationships. At times, tariffs would be increased, but within the guardrails of long-standing and long-term agreements. "The Trump administration destroyed that," Glauber said of the World Trade Organization. In 2019, Trump blocked the appointment of members to the World Trade Organization's appellate body, rendering it unable to settle trade disputes. The United States' proactive approach to fostering trade has largely hit a standstill since Trump first entered office in 2017, Glauber said. Former President Joe Biden did not raise tariffs but he also did not eliminate tariffs on China that were implemented by the Trump administration. As U.S. exports like soybeans lose demand, the prices farmers can sell them for also decreases. Soybeans hit record prices during the former President Barack Obama's second term before hitting a lull throughout Trump's first term. Prices rose again under former President Joe Biden, peaking at $16.88 per bushel in June 2022. The price has steadily declined since, falling to around $10 per bushel in July, down about 40%. The Chicago Board of Trade is a key marker that farmers across the United States monitor to evaluate their risks and offer a benchmark for crop prices. Farmers will measure the prices offered above or below those futures prices reported by the Chicago Board of Trade at their local elevators to determine when to sell. If a crop is sold to a grain elevator at a certain price, the seller locks that price in. For example, if a crop is sold in July at the October future price, they will receive that price in October. If prices are higher, they will have missed out on potential profit. If it is lower, they will be protected from that lower price. Ragland farms soybeans, corn and wheat on his family farm in Magnolia, Ky. Farming is the sole source of income for him, his wife Leanne and their three sons. This year's crop marks his 21st grown on his own farm. Soybeans are planted in the spring and harvested in the fall, beginning in the end of August through September. The next two months will be critical for farmers like Ragland, as there will be more clarity about the true economic impact of Trump's trade policies on the ag industry. "It's been speculation up to this point and anticipation by the market but we have not truly been in the middle of actively sending the lion's share of our crop since all this tariff announcement has been made and all the back and forth that has happened with it," Ragland said. "If we don't have some surety in our markets here in the next 30, 45 days, it is going to lead to more significant price drops, we believe. There is very, very weak demand right now from what we hear for exports due to all the uncertainty in the market." The agriculture community is experiencing economic hardships across the board and tariffs are a part of that. Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings, used to reorganize a farm operation in order to repay debts, were up sharply in the first quarter of 2025. In the first quarter of the year there were nearly twice as many Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings than in the first quarter of 2024, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture reported last week. Farmers may be the first to feel the sting of a downturn in grain prices but they are not alone. Implement dealers, equipment manufacturers and businesses in rural communities are also affected. "They say $1 made in agriculture usually floats around six to eight times in the local community," Ragland said. "That means small businesses and stores and everything else in rural communities are hurting as well. All of this has a very detrimental effect on rural America." "I would also note a lot of these areas we're talking about are the ones that were very large supporters of President Trump," Ragland continued. "We want to respectfully appeal to the administration that we need surety, we need certainty, we need trade deals to be made now and not potentially in the future because the farm economy is in a very difficult spot." According to Ragland, commodity prices are not meeting the cost of production as they are currently. Inflation has aggravated the financial position of farmers like him as fertilizer prices, insurance premiums and equipment costs have risen. The effects Ragland and other producers are dealing with not only disrupt their current crop. It also makes planning for the future more difficult. "The plans I have for this crop here in 2025, a lot of those plans started taking place a year or two ago," Ragland said. "We rotate crops. Sometimes there's fertilizer applied that would be utilized a year or two in the future by the crops. The wheat that we just harvested in June was planted in October of 2024. The seed I planted to grow that crop had to be planned ahead for in the fall of 2023. It's a long-term process, the decisions we have to make."
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
New York Times comes to Wall Street Journal's defense in wake of Trump lawsuit
The New York Times issued a blistering statement on Tuesday condemning a decision by the White House to ban The Wall Street Journal from covering an overseas trip by President Trump this weekend, calling it 'simple retribution.' 'The White House's refusal to let one of the nation's leading news organizations cover the highest office in the country is an attack on core constitutional principles underpinning free speech and free press,' the Times said. 'Americans regardless of party deserve to know and understand the actions of the president and reporters play a vital role in advancing the public interest.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday said the Journal would be excluded from the travel pool heading to Scotland with Trump this weekend, citing the outlet's reporting on a previously unknown letter it said Trump sent disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein. 'Thirteen diverse outlets will participate in the press pool to cover the President's trip to Scotland,' Leavitt said. 'Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board.' The ban comes just days after Trump sued the Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over the newspaper's reporting on his past relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. The Journal reported that Trump was among those who sent a 'bawdy' letter to Epstein for his birthday in 2003. Trump denies writing the letter and has said he appealed directly to Murdoch to stop publication of the Journal story. The president has pushed back forcefully amid widespread calls in the GOP for his administration to release more information about the case involving the dead financier. 'This is simple retribution by a president against a news organization for doing reporting that he doesn't like,' the Times said Tuesday. 'Such actions deprive Americans of information about how their government operates.'
Axios
20 minutes ago
- Axios
U.S. again withdraws from UNESCO, citing anti-Israel bias and "woke" causes
President Trump has again withdrawn the U.S. from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Why it matters: This is the third UN agency the Trump administration is withdrawing from following decisions earlier this year to leave the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council. The move further decreases U.S. footprint and influence in international organizations, and experts say the nation's exit will allow China to increase its influence on the UN system. The U.S. officially informed UNESCO of the decision on Tuesday, the State Department said. The U.S. withdrawal will take effect on December 31, 2026. The U.S. will remain a full member of UNESCO until that time, the State Department said. Behind the scenes: The U.S. move wasn't a surprise. In February, Trump ordered a review of the country's UNESCO membership, and a report was submitted to the White House in May. A U.S. official said Trump made the final decision last week. UNESCO's Director-General Audrey Azoulay expected Trump to again withdraw from the organization. In February, she met with Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference in an effort to influence the administration's perspective, a source with knowledge of the meeting told Axios. In a statement, Azoulay said that after Trump's 2017 UNESCO withdrawal, the organization diversified its funding sources and that U.S. funding is only 8% of the organization's budget today. Catch up quick: After Palestine became a full member of UNESCO in 2011, the Obama administration stopped providing funding to the organization because it was barred to do so by U.S. law. In October 2017, the Trump administration announced it was leaving UNESCO over what it described as anti-Israel bias. Israel announced that it would leave the organization not long after. In February 2022, the Israeli government notified the State Department that it wouldn't oppose a U.S. return to UNESCO. The Israeli position paved the way for some Democrats and Republicans in Congress to support the move. The U.S. rejoined UNESCO in July 2023 under then-President Biden. What they are saying: The U.S. is departing UNESCO since the organization "supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November," White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. Trump "will always put America First and ensure our country's membership in all international organizations aligns with our national interests," she said. It it's own statement, the State Department said "continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States," and pointed to the organization's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as one of the reasons for the departure. UNESCO's involvement in "divisive social and cultural causes" and "outsized focus on the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, a globalist, ideological agenda for international development [is] at odds with our America First foreign policy," the statement said. The statement also accused UNESCO of a "proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric." Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar welcomed the U.S. decision and called in "a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system." A senior Israeli official said the Trump administration notified Israel of the decision in advance. The other side: Azoulay said in a statement she "deeply regrets" Trump's decision and stressed it may impact "first and foremost our many partners in the U.S."
