
What the Next Pope Can Learn From Francis: A Muslim's Reflection
As a Muslim who admired Pope Francis, I join millions in mourning a towering moral voice whose leadership transcended faith boundaries. He was the first pontiff I ever quoted extensively in my speeches and writings. And for good reason. In an era of performative politics and moral ambiguity, Francis dared to speak clearly—and compassionately—about injustice, war, poverty, and dignity.
Now, as the cardinals prepare for a conclave like no other, the world is waiting to see not just who will wear the white cassock next—but what kind of moral compass he will carry.
In his final Easter message, Pope Francis called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, condemned the "deplorable humanitarian situation" there, and pleaded for humanitarian aid and the release of hostages. These were not empty gestures. Throughout Israel's war on Gaza, he consistently denounced the killing of civilians, stating that the bombing of children was "cruelty, not war." He even acknowledged that "experts" had described the assault on Gaza as bearing "the characteristics of genocide" and stood firm with the Vatican's position of calling for a rigorous international investigation.
Even while hospitalized, Pope Francis made daily phone calls to the only Catholic church in Gaza, checking in on displaced civilians and urging them not to lose hope. Some began calling him "the saint of Gaza." For Palestinians—and for many Muslims around the world—this pope was not just a spiritual ally. He felt like family.
One of his final symbolic acts encapsulated this solidarity. Just days before his death, Pope Francis gifted his iconic white Popemobile to Caritas Jerusalem, a Catholic humanitarian organization, asking that it be converted into a mobile clinic. It was a gesture full of meaning: a vehicle typically reserved for the powerful, now handed over to serve a war-torn, besieged population. It became not just a mode of transport, but a message—that the suffering in Gaza mattered at the highest levels of faith and leadership. The Popemobile will reach "children in the most isolated corners of Gaza once humanitarian access to the strip is restored."
This legacy of moral courage and cross-faith protection has deep historical resonance. When the earliest Muslims faced persecution in Mecca, the Prophet Muhammad advised a group of his followers to seek refuge in Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia). There, the Christian king—known as the Negus—listened to their testimony and heard a recitation from Chapter 19 of the Qur'an, titled Mary. He recognized the kinship between Muslim beliefs and the teachings of Jesus, including the reverence shown to both Jesus and Mary in the Qur'an, and offered them asylum. The Meccan delegation, arriving with gifts and pressure, was turned away by the king, who refused to extradite the Muslims, declaring that justice and conscience demanded otherwise.
To be sure, the historical relationship between Catholics and Muslims has not always been marked by mutual respect. From the brutal campaigns of the Crusades to the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition, there have been chapters of religious violence and persecution that still cast long shadows. But history is not monolithic. Alongside the conflict lies a rich tapestry of cooperation, learning, and sanctuary—moments when Christian leaders, like the Negus of Abyssinia and now Pope Francis, stood up for Muslims in times of need. Francis' papacy served as a reminder that the better angels of our shared history can still guide us.
From day one, Pope Francis disrupted expectations with humble, radical gestures—washing the feet of a Muslim woman prisoner in 2013, shortly after becoming pope. He rejected Islamophobic narratives and condemned Qur'an burnings as "disgusting," insisting that all sacred texts must be treated with dignity.
Like the king of Abyssinia, Pope Francis didn't just tolerate difference—he protected it. He embodied a leadership that was not about doctrinal supremacy, but about shared humanity.
Pope Francis was not interested in symbolic interfaith diplomacy. He was interested in building real bridges. In his 2013 Apostolic Exhortation The Joy of the Gospel, he affirmed that Muslims "adore the one, merciful God," and acknowledged the shared reverence for Jesus and Mary. His collaboration with Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayyeb of Al-Azhar led to the Document on Human Fraternity, which declared that God "has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity."
A cardinal gestures as he arrives for a congregation meeting at the Vatican with a view of the St Peter's Basilica in the background on May 6, 2025.
A cardinal gestures as he arrives for a congregation meeting at the Vatican with a view of the St Peter's Basilica in the background on May 6, 2025.
Dimitar DILKOFF / AFP/Getty Images
The pope also revitalized Muslim-Christian dialogue by supporting efforts like A Common Word Between Us and You—a 2007 initiative from Muslim scholars emphasizing love of God and neighbor as shared ethical ground. Unlike many in his position, Pope Francis didn't just support this vision. He embodied it.
This message of universal human dignity resonated deeply across continents and faiths. In Indonesia—the world's largest Muslim-majority country—Francis' death sparked an outpouring of grief. Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, two of the world's largest Islamic organizations, praised his tireless advocacy for peace. "Pope Francis was tireless in his efforts to turn the Catholic church into the caretaker and defender of humanity," said Nahdlatul Ulama Chairman Yahya Staquf.
At a time when so many spiritual leaders shrink from taking moral risks, Pope Francis reminded the world that real faith demands it.
Cardinals from across the globe are gathering in Rome to select the next pope at a moment of great symbolic weight. Days before the conclave, Donald Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself dressed as the pope—an irreverent stunt that trivialized a solemn moment for millions of Catholics. It was a reminder, if any were needed, that our world is desperate for leaders of sincerity and substance.
The next pope cannot merely preserve theological doctrine. He must preserve the moral imagination that Francis so vividly embodied. He must continue the work of reminding us that leadership is not about grandeur, but about grace.
Pope Francis did not chase headlines. But his example generated hope. He reminded Catholics, Muslims, and people of all faiths that true leadership is about walking with the marginalized, listening to the silenced, and challenging injustice—even when it carries a cost.
His passing leaves a void—but also a path forward.
In the Muslim tradition, what endures beyond this life is not status or power, but one's moral courage and compassion. Pope Francis leaves behind a legacy not of doctrine alone, but of deep human connection, prophetic conscience, and unshakable solidarity with the oppressed.
As Muslims, we honor that legacy. And as members of a wounded world in search of moral clarity, we hope that Francis' successor will not only wear the white robes of the papacy—but also carry the weight of its moral responsibility.
May the next pope walk the path Francis helped illuminate—with humility, courage, and the conviction that faith must always serve justice.
Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer, law professor, and frequent contributor to The Toronto Star.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
America the Fortress
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Past leaders have imagined the United States as a 'shining city upon a hill,' a melting pot, a 'beacon to the world.' Donald Trump is working toward a different vision: the United States as a fortress. Late Wednesday, the White House announced a new version of the travel bans that it had imposed during Trump's first term, barring people from 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from coming to the U.S., and restricting entry from seven others: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (The ban has some exceptions.) Shortly after, he issued a proclamation that bars foreign nationals from entering the country to attend Harvard University—though not other universities, for reasons that are not satisfactorily explained but seem to boil down to Trump's animus toward the school. A judge promptly issued a temporary block on the new rule. (Trump had made the move after she temporarily blocked his previous attempt to prohibit Harvard from enrolling foreign students.) The new travel ban is, if you're keeping score, Trump's fifth, and the widest ranging. The first came on January 27, 2017. In line with his campaign promise to prevent Muslims from entering the United States, it barred entry to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days; suspended refugee admission for 120 days; indefinitely blocked refugees from Syria; and lowered the overall annual cap on refugees. When a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, Trump replaced it with a somewhat narrower one, again running for 90 days, which covered the same countries minus Iraq. Federal courts initially blocked the core parts of that order too, though the Supreme Court allowed it to mostly go forward. Trump issued additional bans in fall 2017 and January 2020, with various changes to the countries covered. Joe Biden rescinded the bans on January 20, 2021. In a video about the new ban, Trump cited 'the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' and said: 'We don't want them.' That message is loud and clear—even to those who aren't formally banned. Horror stories about foreign nationals visiting the U.S. have begun to circulate: Two German teens claimed that they were detained, strip-searched, and deported from Hawaii (U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied their account and alleged that they had entered the country under false pretenses); an Australian ex–police officer said she was locked up while trying to visit her American husband; New Zealand's biggest newspaper ran an article in which an anonymous 'travel industry staffer' encouraged Kiwis not to visit the United States. These anecdotes could exact a cost. The World Travel & Tourism Council, an industry trade group, released a report last month forecasting a $12.5 billion decline in tourist spending in the United States this year. That is not the product of global factors: Out of 184 countries the group studied, the U.S. is the only one expected to see a drop. Other forecasts see a smaller but still huge decline, though so far the data show a major decline only in travel to the U.S. from Canada. The Trump administration's reputation as a host has taken a hit in other ways too. A visit to the White House was once a desirable prize for any foreign leader; now even allies are approaching them with trepidation. After the president ambushed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office meetings—showing a racist and misleading clip, in the latter case—German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly prepared for yesterday's meeting by seeking tips from other world leaders on how to handle Trump. (The encounter was still bumpy at times.) This hostility to foreigners of all sorts is neither an accident nor collateral damage. It's the policy. Trump's xenophobia is long-standing and well documented, but some of his aides have developed this into more than just a reflex of disgust. Vice President J. D. Vance has championed ideas aligned with the 'Great Replacement' theory that Democrats are trying to dilute the existing demographic and cultural mix of the United States with immigrants. 'America is not just an idea,' he said last July. 'It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.' Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 crew, each of whom exerts a great deal of influence over Trump's policies, have pushed not just for stopping illegal immigration and deporting migrants but also for limiting legal immigration. The rare exception that Trump and his aides allow helps make the implied racism in these ideas explicit. The administration has moved to dramatically reduce refugee admissions, but last month, it welcomed a few dozen white Afrikaners from South Africa, whom the White House claims were victims of racial discrimination at home. The administration even seems eager to discourage people from leaving the country. Green-card holders are being arrested and detained while reentering the U.S.; immigration lawyers say the safest course for legal permanent residents is to stay in the country. Trump has also repeatedly expressed a desire to weaken the dollar, which would make it more expensive for Americans to vacation overseas. North Korea is frequently described as a hermit kingdom for its willingness to wall itself off from the rest of the world. Trump has expressed his admiration for and personal bond with Kim Jong Un before, but now he seems eager to emulate Kim's seclusion too. Related: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students How the Trump administration learned to obscure the truth in court Here are four new stories from The Atlantic. What happens when people don't understand how AI works Trump is wearing America down. Inside the Trump-Musk breakup The Super Bowl of internet beefs Today's News The Supreme Court ruled that DOGE members can have access to the Social Security Administration's sensitive records. The Labor Department released numbers showing that job growth was strong but did slow last month amid uncertainty about Donald Trump's tariff policies. The unemployment rate held steady. Five leaders of the Proud Boys, four of whom had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy due to their actions on January 6, 2021, sued the government for $100 million, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated. More From The Atlantic Juliette Kayyem: The new Gaza relief effort was bound to fail. Every election is now existential. As America steps back, others step in. Evening Read Fast Times and Mean Girls By Hillary Kelly In the early spring, I caught a preview at my local Alamo Drafthouse Cinema for its forthcoming stoner-classics retrospective: snippets of Monty Python's Life of Brian; Tommy Boy; a few Dada-esque cartoons perfect for zonking out on, post-edible. The audience watched quietly until Matthew McConaughey, sporting a parted blond bowl cut and ferrying students to some end-of-year fun, delivered a signature bit of dialogue. 'Say, man, you got a joint?' he asked the kid in the back seat. 'Uhhh, no, not on me, man.' 'It'd be a lot cooler if you did,' he drawled. The crowd, including me, went wild. Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused, in which a fresh-faced McConaughey appears as Wooderson, the guy who graduated years back but still hangs with the high-school kids, is that kind of teen movie: eternally jubilance-inspiring. Set in 1976 and released in 1993, it's a paean to the let-loose ethos of a certain decade of American high school. And boy do these kids let loose. Read the full article. Culture Break Watch. The Phoenician Scheme, in theaters, is the latest Wes Anderson film to let modern life seep into a high-concept world. Read. Check out our summer reading guide to find a book for every mood. Play our daily crossword. P.S. In other immigration news, ABC News broke the story this afternoon that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident and Salvadoran citizen whom the Trump administration deported to a Salvadoran Gulag, has been returned to the United States to face criminal charges. The Justice Department acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia's removal was an 'administrative error,' as my colleague Nick Miroff reported, before resorting to ever more absurd claims that he was a member of the gang MS-13. Now Abrego Garcia has been indicted for alleged involvement in a scheme to traffic migrants within the United States. I have no idea if these charges are true; the indictment is relatively brief, and the administration's earlier desperation to pin charges on him is worrying. (The investigation that led to the criminal charges reportedly began only after his removal.) Nevertheless, if the government believes that he committed these crimes, he should be tried in court with due process. As I wrote in April, 'If the people who are getting arrested are really the cold-blooded criminals the executive branch insists they are, saying so in a court of law should be relatively easy.' Now the administration will have a chance to do that, and Abrego Garcia will have a chance to defend himself. — David Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ban on travel shows what he's learned
When President Donald Trump abruptly unleashed his ban on people coming from Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos erupted at U.S. airports. Protests broke out in major cities across the country. Legal challenges stymied the administration, which ultimately had to slim down its order to pass constitutional muster. This time, as Trump leveled new restrictions against 19 nations, the reaction was mostly muted and the legal justification appears more deliberate. It's the nature of the do-over presidency, which has provided Trump with a unique opportunity to build on his first term. And no policy better captures the way in which Trump is demonstrating he's learned from past mistakes or benefitting from a Democratic party less inclined to fight over border security quite like his travel ban 2.0. 'The first version of those travel restrictions were not upheld because the court wanted to see 'what's your methodology, what's the criteria in which you're making these national security decisions?' said Chad Wolf, acting DHS secretary during the president's first term. 'And then once we went back and further validated it and showed the court, they affirmed it. So I definitely think that they built on that, and then probably expanded it as well.' Trump has used his first five months in office to propose a host of immigration-related ideas that he batted around during his first term but ultimately did not pursue, including an attempt to end birthright citizenship and a plan to revoke Chinese student visas. His team has also taken on an aggressive legal strategy, an effort designed to expand the president's power over the immigration system and implement policy changes more difficult for future presidents to unravel. And Trump released dozens of immigration executive orders in his first week in office, many that directed his agencies to begin exploring the sweeping restrictions he promised on the campaign trail — a torrent of action that wouldn't have been possible without the coordination across the president's team, MAGA allies and conservative think tanks that spent the last four years planning a robust policy agenda. To be sure, lawsuits over the new travel ban are in the works. Immigration advocates and some legal experts say the new ban, while perhaps better planned than the original version, is nonetheless unconstitutional. 'The new ban is being promulgated in a context in which President Trump has shown a defiance of due process and disregard for judicial decisions that exceeds anything in his first term,' said Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor at Seton Hall. 'This will also likely factor in how courts evaluate the new travel ban, and could make them more skeptical of the administration's claims but also more wary of directly confronting the administration.' And more broadly, the president's immigration agenda has faced several setbacks, adverse legal rulings and a haphazard approach that has often undermined the administration's case in court. Judges have said immigrants have been wrongly deported — without due process — and have blocked Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that the White House relied upon for authority to deport more than 100 accused of gang membership to an El Salvadoran prison. And his hurried deportations tactics have resulted in at least four men being improperly deported in violation of court orders. The administration was forced to bring one of them back to the U.S. in recent days. The White House has also faced steep hurdles in other aspects of its immigration agenda. Judges ruled that his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship was flagrantly unconstitutional, and the policy faced skepticism from the Supreme Court last month. But when it comes to his new travel ban, legal experts on both sides of the aisle say the president is likely on stronger footing should he face challenges. "Under Trump 2.0 there's been an aspect of doing that legwork in advance, so that it would fall under those parameters,' said Morgan Bailey, a partner at Mayer Brown and a former senior official at DHS under the Biden and Trump administrations. 'There may be some challenges. At the same time, having the Supreme Court decision from Trump 1.0 could put this administration in a really strong position.' Trump's team has been refining his latest travel ban for months, marking a departure from his slapdash approach in 2017. The president on Wednesday said the State Department considered factors such as terrorist activity, visa security cooperation, a country's ability to verify travelers' identities, record keeping of nationals' criminal histories, as well as the rate of illegal visa overstays. The proclamation also broke down the government's reasoning for each country's selection, as well as their visa overstay rates. 'Campaigning is a lot about policy and planning, and governing is about the now and reacting, so this has been a true mix' said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration appointee. 'Granted, Trump take two has been arguably the largest runway any president has ever had in terms of preparing for their second term. So I think you're seeing more of the granular and nuanced implementation around some of these policies.' Trump's 2017 restrictions shocked the nation, and legal setbacks forced the administration to alter the policy twice before the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a version the following year, affirming the president's powers over matters of national security. The final policy implemented a range of travel restrictions for nationals of eight countries — Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, Chad and Venezuela. Chad was later removed from the list. And almost immediately after that first order was announced, thousands of protesters marched in cities across the country, while attorneys from major law firms, nonprofits and immigrant rights groups ran to airports to help those detained. There was widespread Democratic outcry in Washington and beyond, and the so-called 'Muslim ban' emerged as a major issue in the 2020 Democratic Primary — with then-President Joe Biden reversing the policy on his first day in the White House. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats have abandoned claims that Trump's first-term policy was a 'Muslim ban' and 'their performative protests,' adding that the president is 'keeping his promises to put America first.' This executive order has also been met with far less outrage, in part, because of the administration's effort to flood the zone and keep their opponents off balance. 'There's just so many attacks coming from the Trump administration on all fronts,' said Kerri Talbot, co-director of the Immigration Hub, predicting that when the new order takes effect on Monday, there will be coordinated demonstrations. But the more methodical way in which this ban on travel was issued may give it greater staying power. The 2017 ban applied to U.S. citizens traveling from the nations on Trump's original list and because it went into effect immediately, it affected people on planes flying back into the country. The ban issued late Wednesday does not apply to those with legal status in the U.S., and includes exemptions for existing visa holders, lawful permanent residents and some others. While the political pushback may be scarce, Trump wasn't the only one who had extra time to prepare for his second term. Immigration groups and legal organizations have analyzed Trump's proposals, drafted legal briefs, coordinated messaging and organized aid for immigrants and asylum seekers — preparation that has set up a series of contentious court battles. Trump allies are prepared for the possibility that travel ban 2.0 could face challenges in the courts, though they're much more confident given the 2018 SCOTUS ruling. 'I have no doubt that they believe that you can get some lower court judge to issue an injunction where they claim that somehow this order is different from the prior order,' said Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal and judicial studies fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 'But they will lose.' Brakkton Booker and Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.


Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
America the Fortress
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Past leaders have imagined the United States as a 'shining city upon a hill,' a melting pot, a ' beacon to the world.' Donald Trump is working toward a different vision: the United States as a fortress. Late Wednesday, the White House announced a new version of the travel bans that it had imposed during Trump's first term, barring people from 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from coming to the U.S., and restricting entry from seven others: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (The ban has some exceptions.) Shortly after, he issued a proclamation that bars foreign nationals from entering the country to attend Harvard University—though not other universities, for reasons that are not satisfactorily explained but seem to boil down to Trump's animus toward the school. A judge promptly issued a temporary block on the new rule. (Trump had made the move after she temporarily blocked his previous attempt to prohibit Harvard from enrolling foreign students.) The new travel ban is, if you're keeping score, Trump's fifth, and the widest ranging. The first came on January 27, 2017. In line with his campaign promise to prevent Muslims from entering the United States, it barred entry to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days; suspended refugee admission for 120 days; indefinitely blocked refugees from Syria; and lowered the overall annual cap on refugees. When a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, Trump replaced it with a somewhat narrower one, again running for 90 days, which covered the same countries minus Iraq. Federal courts initially blocked the core parts of that order too, though the Supreme Court allowed it to mostly go forward. Trump issued additional bans in fall 2017 and January 2020, with various changes to the countries covered. Joe Biden rescinded the bans on January 20, 2021. In a video about the new ban, Trump cited 'the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' and said: 'We don't want them.' That message is loud and clear—even to those who aren't formally banned. Horror stories about foreign nationals visiting the U.S. have begun to circulate: Two German teens claimed that they were detained, strip-searched, and deported from Hawaii (U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied their account and alleged that they had entered the country under false pretenses); an Australian ex–police officer said she was locked up while trying to visit her American husband; New Zealand's biggest newspaper ran an article in which an anonymous 'travel industry staffer' encouraged Kiwis not to visit the United States. These anecdotes could exact a cost. The World Travel & Tourism Council, an industry trade group, released a report last month forecasting a $12.5 billion decline in tourist spending in the United States this year. That is not the product of global factors: Out of 184 countries the group studied, the U.S. is the only one expected to see a drop. Other forecasts see a smaller but still huge decline, though so far the data show a major decline only in travel to the U.S. from Canada. The Trump administration's reputation as a host has taken a hit in other ways too. A visit to the White House was once a desirable prize for any foreign leader; now even allies are approaching them with trepidation. After the president ambushed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office meetings—showing a racist and misleading clip, in the latter case—German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly prepared for yesterday's meeting by seeking tips from other world leaders on how to handle Trump. (The encounter was still bumpy at times.) This hostility to foreigners of all sorts is neither an accident nor collateral damage. It's the policy. Trump's xenophobia is long-standing and well documented, but some of his aides have developed this into more than just a reflex of disgust. Vice President J. D. Vance has championed ideas aligned with the 'Great Replacement' theory that Democrats are trying to dilute the existing demographic and cultural mix of the United States with immigrants. 'America is not just an idea,' he said last July. 'It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.' Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 crew, each of whom exerts a great deal of influence over Trump's policies, have pushed not just for stopping illegal immigration and deporting migrants but also for limiting legal immigration. The rare exception that Trump and his aides allow helps make the implied racism in these ideas explicit. The administration has moved to dramatically reduce refugee admissions, but last month, it welcomed a few dozen white Afrikaners from South Africa, whom the White House claims were victims of racial discrimination at home. The administration even seems eager to discourage people from leaving the country. Green-card holders are being arrested and detained while reentering the U.S.; immigration lawyers say the safest course for legal permanent residents is to stay in the country. Trump has also repeatedly expressed a desire to weaken the dollar, which would make it more expensive for Americans to vacation overseas. North Korea is frequently described as a hermit kingdom for its willingness to wall itself off from the rest of the world. Trump has expressed his admiration for and personal bond with Kim Jong Un before, but now he seems eager to emulate Kim's seclusion too. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic. What happens when people don't understand how AI works Trump is wearing America down. Inside the Trump-Musk breakup The Super Bowl of internet beefs Today's News The Supreme Court ruled that DOGE members can have access to the Social Security Administration's sensitive records. The Labor Department released numbers showing that job growth was strong but did slow last month amid uncertainty about Donald Trump's tariff policies. The unemployment rate held steady. Five leaders of the Proud Boys, four of whom had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy due to their actions on January 6, 2021, sued the government for $100 million, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated. More From The Atlantic Evening Read Fast Times and Mean Girls By Hillary Kelly In the early spring, I caught a preview at my local Alamo Drafthouse Cinema for its forthcoming stoner-classics retrospective: snippets of Monty Python's Life of Brian; Tommy Boy; a few Dada-esque cartoons perfect for zonking out on, post-edible. The audience watched quietly until Matthew McConaughey, sporting a parted blond bowl cut and ferrying students to some end-of-year fun, delivered a signature bit of dialogue. 'Say, man, you got a joint?' he asked the kid in the back seat. 'Uhhh, no, not on me, man.' 'It'd be a lot cooler if you did,' he drawled. The crowd, including me, went wild. Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused, in which a fresh-faced McConaughey appears as Wooderson, the guy who graduated years back but still hangs with the high-school kids, is that kind of teen movie: eternally jubilance-inspiring. Set in 1976 and released in 1993, it's a paean to the let-loose ethos of a certain decade of American high school. And boy do these kids let loose. Culture Break Watch. The Phoenician Scheme, in theaters, is the latest Wes Anderson film to let modern life seep into a high-concept world. Play our daily crossword. P.S. In other immigration news, ABC News broke the story this afternoon that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident and Salvadoran citizen whom the Trump administration deported to a Salvadoran Gulag, has been returned to the United States to face criminal charges. The Justice Department acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia's removal was an 'administrative error,' as my colleague Nick Miroff reported, before resorting to ever more absurd claims that he was a member of the gang MS-13. Now Abrego Garcia has been indicted for alleged involvement in a scheme to traffic migrants within the United States. I have no idea if these charges are true; the indictment is relatively brief, and the administration's earlier desperation to pin charges on him is worrying. (The investigation that led to the criminal charges reportedly began only after his removal.) Nevertheless, if the government believes that he committed these crimes, he should be tried in court with due process. As I wrote in April, 'If the people who are getting arrested are really the cold-blooded criminals the executive branch insists they are, saying so in a court of law should be relatively easy.' Now the administration will have a chance to do that, and Abrego Garcia will have a chance to defend himself. — David