Grupo Firme cancels appearance at La Onda festival, becoming latest international act to face visa issues
Grupo Firme was unable to show up for its previously planned June 1 set at Napa's La Onda festival.
The Tijuana band announced the cancellation Friday afternoon on social media.
'Currently, the visas of Grupo Firme and the Music VIP [Entertainment] team are in an administrative process by the U.S. Embassy, a situation that makes it impossible for Grupo Firme's performance at La Onda Fest to go on as planned,' the band wrote in a statement posted on its Instagram stories. 'We are sorry for the inconvenience this may cause. Thank you for your understanding and, above all else, the love from our U.S. fans.'
Grupo Firme is the latest international musical act facing visa issues since President Trump took office for his second presidential term. Many of these have been música Mexicana artists.
The group's news came only a week after Mexican singer Julión Álvarez postponed his May 24 show at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, after he claimed his work visa had been revoked.
The 42-year-old musician alleged in a May 23 Instagram video that he had received the news of his work visa revocation that day, leaving him and his band unable to travel to Texas for their planned performance. He also claimed he didn't have a full sense of clarity regarding the ongoing status of his visa and was limited in what he could dispel about the situation.
Also in May, Chicago's Michelada Fest, a Spanish-language music festival that had programmed several Latin American acts was canceled due to concerns over artists' visas.
'Due to the uncertainty surrounding artist visas and the rapidly changing political climate, we're no longer able to guarantee the full experience we had dreamed up for you with all your favorite artists,' the festival's organizers explained in a statement. 'Although we tried to push through, it became clear that we wouldn't be able to deliver the full lineup as planned.'
The organizers would go on to write that, as an independent outfit, Michelada Fest 'can't afford to take on a big risk with so much uncertainty ahead.'
Grupo Firme, Anitta, Danny Ocean, Tokischa and Luis R. Conriquez were scheduled to perform at the July festival.
In early April, the U.S. State Department canceled the work and tourist visas of the members of the Mexican corrido band Los Alegres del Barranco after the group displayed photos of drug lord Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes at its concert in Guadalajara, Mexico.
During their March 29 show at the University of Guadalajara, the band put an illustrated depiction of Cervantes — a key player in the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, or CJNG — on a mega-screen while playing their song 'El Dueño del Palenque.' Videos of the incident were captured on social media.
'I'm pleased to announce that the State Department has revoked the band members' work and tourism visas. In the Trump Administration, we take seriously our responsibility over foreigners' access to our country,' said Christopher Landau, the U.S. deputy Secretary of State in April. 'The last thing we need is a welcome mat for people who extol criminals and terrorists.'
Outside of the world of Latino artists, British singer FKA twigs announced in April on Instagram that she had to cancel series of concerts for the month in North America — including a slot at Coachella 2025 — due to 'ongoing visa issues.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
5 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump says he spoke to Putin, predicts no 'immediate' peace for Russia and Ukraine
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he spoke with Russian leader Vladimir Putin for well over an hour about Ukraine's latest attack on Russian airplanes and nuclear talks with Iran. Putin in that call vowed retaliation against Ukraine for the stunning surprise attack, which Kyiv said resulted in strikes on more than 40 Russian bombers, Trump said. "It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields," the president added. Trump's post did not say if he discouraged Putin from taking that action. The call with Putin lasted about 75 minutes, Trump said. This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
9 minutes ago
Pop singer Jessie J says she has been diagnosed with early breast cancer
NEW YORK -- The English pop singer Jessie J says she has been diagnosed with breast cancer and will undergo surgery after her performance at the London music festival Capital's Summertime Ball next weekend. Jessie J, 37, shared the news in an Instagram video on Wednesday. 'I was diagnosed with early breast cancer,' she said in the clip. 'Cancer sucks in any form, but I'm holding onto the word 'early'." 'It's a very dramatic way to get a boob job. I am going to disappear for a bit after Summertime Ball to have my surgery, and I will come back with massive (expletive) and more music.' The annual Summertime Ball will be held at Wembley Stadium on Sunday, June 15. She told her social media audience that she felt compelled to share her diagnosis. 'I just wanted to be open and share it,' she said. 'One, because, selfishly, I do not talk about it enough. I'm not processing it because I'm working so hard. I also know how much sharing in the past has helped me with other people giving me their love and support and also their own stories. I'm an open book. It breaks my heart that so many people are going through so much similar and worse – that's the bit that kills me.' The Grammy-nominated Jessie J has long been celebrated for her robust soprano and R&B-informed pop hits, like the 2014 collaboration with Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande, 'Bang Bang,' and 2011's 'Domino.' She has released five albums across her career, most recently, 2018's Christmas album, 'This Christmas Day.' She has been releasing new music in 2025, including the singles 'Living My Best Life' and 'No Secrets.' A new album is expected later this year. She has a son, Sky Safir Cornish Colman, born in 2023.
Vox
19 minutes ago
- Vox
Big government is still good, even with Trump in power
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. It's easy to look at Donald Trump's second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people's lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren't so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life. Trump's presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society's problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn't be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn't support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they're in power. That's certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It's that there's not enough oversight. Reducing the power of the government wouldn't necessarily protect us. In fact, 'making government smaller' is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power. First things first: What is 'big government'? When Americans are polled about how they feel about 'big government' programs — policies like universal health care, social security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support 'big government' in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat. That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because 'big government' can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over 'big government' can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs. As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations. A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people's faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes. A constrained government does not mean a small government But what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. Related Three reasons why American democracy will likely withstand Trump In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump's power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump's most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump's policies have already upended people's lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn't been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that's not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It's because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking government The biggest lesson from Trump's first term was that America's system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn't strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check. But again that's a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren't dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don't become outdated, as they do now. And while it's impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative. By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies' business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors. In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. 'Despite Donald Trump's rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,' said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation who previously served as an associate director at the CFPB. 'He may use the language of 'government inefficiency' to accomplish his goals, but I think what we're seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.' The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It's also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans' effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can't get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they'll turn to private lenders instead. 'It's not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it's also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,' Margetta Morgan said. 'This is the small government alternative: It's cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.' Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people's most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes. So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there's one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that's not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.
