Latest news with #R-Fla.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Supreme Court just put Venezuelan lives at risk — Congress must act
The Supreme Court just opened the door for the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Venezuelans living in the U.S. It's a legal decision with devastating real-world consequences — one that places countless lives in danger. Deportation, in many cases, will not mean a return to stability. It will mean being sent back to a country ruled by a dictatorship, or to detention in Salvadoran prisons under new regional migration arrangements. This makes the bipartisan bill introduced last week by Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) all the more urgent. Their proposal to redesignate protected status for Venezuela isn't just a humane gesture — it is a lifeline, and a much-needed corrective to a policy shift that threatens to dismantle the protections that hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have relied on for years. Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans was originally granted during the Biden administration in recognition of the dire circumstances they were fleeing. But the return of President Trump has brought a hardline stance. Hundreds of Venezuelans have been deported in recent months, many without due process. Most have no criminal records, no ties to gangs, and no realistic pathway to safety. Deportation, for many, is a sentence to further trauma, persecution, or even death. It's worth asking why these protections were granted in the first place. Venezuelans are not merely fleeing poverty or economic collapse. They are fleeing a dictatorship. Under Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan state has systematically dismantled every democratic institution, including free elections, independent courts, and press freedom. Much of the political opposition has been jailed or exiled. In the 2024 election — only the latest example of this — the regime stalled the vote, manipulated the process, and has yet to publish credible results. The consensus belief worldwide is that the opposition candidate won but that the result was fabricated to the contrary. Yet even after two decades of authoritarianism and the largest refugee crisis in the hemisphere, some voices continue to claim that U.S. sanctions — not the regime — are the primary cause of the exodus. This narrative, often backed by questionable empirical methods, is not only misleading; it's dangerous. Reducing Venezuela's crisis to mere economics erases the lived reality of millions. It provides cover for those who argue that Temporary Protected Status should be revoked because this is just another wave of economic migrants. Worse, it lends credence to a damaging and false narrative that Venezuelans are criminals — people fleeing poverty who then commit crimes in the U.S. — rather than refugees escaping a repressive regime, seeking dignity and safety. This mischaracterization is not only inaccurate but also undermines U.S. moral leadership. In recent research I conducted, we tested the supposed link between sanctions and migration by examining whether fluctuations in Venezuela's oil revenues — a proxy for sanctions pressure — predicted migration flows. What we found was striking: more Venezuelans fled not when oil revenues fell, but when they rose. In other words, when the regime had more money to entrench itself and expand repression, hopelessness deepened — and more people fled. Even the most conservative reading of the data finds no evidence that sanctions caused the exodus. And yet, critics — some of whom inadvertently echo the regime's own talking points — continue to argue that the crisis is merely economic. They're wrong. And by repeating that myth, they are helping justify the very policy shifts now putting lives at risk. Maduro didn't just bankrupt Venezuela. He stole its future. He took not only the people's money, but their freedom. Venezuelans in the United States are not economic migrants — they are refugees from a brutal dictatorship. Temporary Protected Status is not charity. It is the bare minimum a country that claims to be a beacon of liberty should offer to those fleeing persecution. Congress has the chance — and now, the responsibility — to act. Dany Bahar is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development and an associate professor at Brown University. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court just put Venezuelan lives at risk — Congress must act
The Supreme Court just opened the door for the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Venezuelans living in the U.S. It's a legal decision with devastating real-world consequences — one that places countless lives in danger. Deportation, in many cases, will not mean a return to stability. It will mean being sent back to a country ruled by a dictatorship, or to detention in Salvadoran prisons under new regional migration arrangements. This makes the bipartisan bill introduced last week by Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) all the more urgent. Their proposal to redesignate protected status for Venezuela isn't just a humane gesture — it is a lifeline, and a much-needed corrective to a policy shift that threatens to dismantle the protections that hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have relied on for years. Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans was originally granted during the Biden administration in recognition of the dire circumstances they were fleeing. But the return of President Trump has brought a hardline stance. Hundreds of Venezuelans have been deported in recent months, many without due process. Most have no criminal records, no ties to gangs, and no realistic pathway to safety. Deportation, for many, is a sentence to further trauma, persecution, or even death. It's worth asking why these protections were granted in the first place. Venezuelans are not merely fleeing poverty or economic collapse. They are fleeing a dictatorship. Under Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan state has systematically dismantled every democratic institution, including free elections, independent courts, and press freedom. Much of the political opposition has been jailed or exiled. In the 2024 election — only the latest example of this — the regime stalled the vote, manipulated the process, and has yet to publish credible results. The consensus belief worldwide is that the opposition candidate won but that the result was fabricated to the contrary. Yet even after two decades of authoritarianism and the largest refugee crisis in the hemisphere, some voices continue to claim that U.S. sanctions — not the regime — are the primary cause of the exodus. This narrative, often backed by questionable empirical methods, is not only misleading; it's dangerous. Reducing Venezuela's crisis to mere economics erases the lived reality of millions. It provides cover for those who argue that Temporary Protected Status should be revoked because this is just another wave of economic migrants. Worse, it lends credence to a damaging and false narrative that Venezuelans are criminals — people fleeing poverty who then commit crimes in the U.S. — rather than refugees escaping a repressive regime, seeking dignity and safety. This mischaracterization is not only inaccurate but also undermines U.S. moral leadership. In recent research I conducted, we tested the supposed link between sanctions and migration by examining whether fluctuations in Venezuela's oil revenues — a proxy for sanctions pressure — predicted migration flows. What we found was striking: more Venezuelans fled not when oil revenues fell, but when they rose. In other words, when the regime had more money to entrench itself and expand repression, hopelessness deepened — and more people fled. Even the most conservative reading of the data finds no evidence that sanctions caused the exodus. And yet, critics — some of whom inadvertently echo the regime's own talking points — continue to argue that the crisis is merely economic. They're wrong. And by repeating that myth, they are helping justify the very policy shifts now putting lives at risk. Maduro didn't just bankrupt Venezuela. He stole its future. He took not only the people's money, but their freedom. Venezuelans in the United States are not economic migrants — they are refugees from a brutal dictatorship. Temporary Protected Status is not charity. It is the bare minimum a country that claims to be a beacon of liberty should offer to those fleeing persecution. Congress has the chance — and now, the responsibility — to act.
Epoch Times
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
On Cuba's Independence Day, Rubio and US Lawmakers Demand End to Communist Rule
A group of Cuban American members of Congress and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for Cuba's freedom and the release of more than 1,000 political prisoners as part of a commemoration of the archipelago's Independence Day. 'Cuba will be free again! Today, May 20, we honor the birth of the Republic of Cuba and all the brave people who continue to fight against tyranny. Freedom is not negotiable,' Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) on social media platform X.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - America still needs the Women, Peace and Security Act — just not Biden's version of it
When President Trump signed the Women, Peace and Security Act into law in 2017, it was a pragmatic triumph, rooted in biological reality and strategic clarity. Championed by Ivanka Trump, the legislation recognized that women and girls, due to their unique experiences — especially in conflict zones — play a critical role in stabilizing societies. Backed by data showing that peace agreements last 35 percent longer when women are involved in making them, the act was no progressive fantasy. It was a hard-nosed strategy to enhance U.S. national security. Yet, under the Biden administration, ideological overreach distorted the law into a bloated 'woke' program, diluting its focus on women's distinct contributions. It's time to reorient the law to its original intent, leveraging biological differences to advance America's strategic interests and increase our strength and security. The Women, Peace and Security Act was conservative at its core, grounded in the undeniable fact that women and girls face disproportionate violence, displacement and exploitation, and that this shapes their perspectives and roles in security and peacebuilding. Co-sponsored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), it aimed to harness these experiences to strengthen U.S. foreign policy, fostering stable societies that reduce threats requiring American intervention. Ivanka Trump's advocacy tied the bill to her Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which reached 12 million women by 2019 with free-market tools like workforce training and property rights. This wasn't about social justice; it was about empowering women's unique contributions to prevent failed states that presage poor outcomes, like becoming breeding grounds for terrorism. The original framework of the Women, Peace and Security Act also resonated with the Department of Defense's practical acknowledgment of biological differences. In Afghanistan, cultural support teams exemplified this: All-female units leveraged women's ability to engage local women and children, often inaccessible to male soldiers, gathering intelligence and building trust in ways men could not. This wasn't ideology — it was a force multiplier, increasing lethality by exploiting biological and cultural realities. Cultural support teams proved that recognizing women's distinct capabilities enhances mission success, aligning with the act's focus on results over dogma. But that focus has been lost. The Biden administration buried Women, Peace and Security under progressive mandates: gender advisers, climate security and diversity workshops ignored biological reality in favor of gender-neutral platitudes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's April 2025 decision to end the Pentagon's Women, Peace and Security program reflected this frustration, calling it a 'divisive social justice' distraction. This bureaucratic creep alienates allies, who see such mandates as cultural overreach, undermining the act's grounding in women's distinct roles. Reclaiming Women, Peace and Security begins with restoring its foundation in biological reality — a principle President Trump recently reaffirmed through his executive order recognizing only two sexes. The Women, Peace and Security Act was never meant to serve as a vessel for progressive social experimentation. It was designed to elevate the distinct and often underutilized contributions of women in peacebuilding, diplomacy and security. That requires course correction, not cancellation. First, costly gender quotas and United Nations-imposed compliance mechanisms must be eliminated. These mandates divert resources from mission-critical priorities like military readiness and strategic diplomacy. Second, the program should be predominantly confined to the State Department, where it can strengthen alliances without militarizing a civilian-focused initiative. Third, programming should revive Ivanka Trump's storytelling approach, showcasing real women's successes to build support without progressive preaching. Fourth, within the Department of Defense, Women, Peace and Security principles should inform — not distort — force design. Programs like the aforementioned cultural support teams, which trained female soldiers to gather intelligence and build trust in environments where male soldiers could not, offer a proven model. These are not diversity programs; they are combat multipliers. Finally, for Women, Peace and Security to succeed abroad, it must engage men and boys. Women's empowerment initiatives that ignore traditional power structures or attempt to replace them will fail. Cultural legitimacy matters. True progress complements, rather than erases, local norms. Critics will argue that scaling back risks undermining women's gains. But the original program, which helped Colombia adopt a National Action Plan in 2019, proved its efficacy by focusing on women's lived experiences, not ideological bloat. Others might call for scrapping Women, Peace and Security entirely. Yet abandoning a proven tool — one that recognizes biological reality to boost security and lethality — hands adversaries an edge in unstable regions. A streamlined Women, Peace and Security program, rooted in its 2017 intent, preserves its value while rejecting globalist overreach. The Women, Peace and Security Act was a conservative triumph — a bipartisan policy that leveraged women's unique experiences to serve America's interests. By realigning it with its original roots, the Trump administration can restore the act's promise, delivering a stronger, more lethal America and a more stable world. Meaghan Mobbs, Ph.D., is director for the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women's Forum. She is also the military advocacy and policy liaison for the Coalition for Military Excellence. Mobbs serves as a gubernatorial appointee to the Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors and a presidential appointee to the United States Military Academy — West Point Board of Visitors. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
America still needs the Women, Peace and Security Act — just not Biden's version of it
When President Trump signed the Women, Peace and Security Act into law in 2017, it was a pragmatic triumph, rooted in biological reality and strategic clarity. Championed by Ivanka Trump, the legislation recognized that women and girls, due to their unique experiences — especially in conflict zones — play a critical role in stabilizing societies. Backed by data showing that peace agreements last 35 percent longer when women are involved in making them, the act was no progressive fantasy. It was a hard-nosed strategy to enhance U.S. national security. Yet, under the Biden administration, ideological overreach distorted the law into a bloated 'woke' program, diluting its focus on women's distinct contributions. It's time to reorient the law to its original intent, leveraging biological differences to advance America's strategic interests and increase our strength and security. The Women, Peace and Security Act was conservative at its core, grounded in the undeniable fact that women and girls face disproportionate violence, displacement and exploitation, and that this shapes their perspectives and roles in security and peacebuilding. Co-sponsored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), it aimed to harness these experiences to strengthen U.S. foreign policy, fostering stable societies that reduce threats requiring American intervention. Ivanka Trump's advocacy tied the bill to her Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which reached 12 million women by 2019 with free-market tools like workforce training and property rights. This wasn't about social justice; it was about empowering women's unique contributions to prevent failed states that presage poor outcomes, like becoming breeding grounds for terrorism. The original framework of the Women, Peace and Security Act also resonated with the Department of Defense's practical acknowledgment of biological differences. In Afghanistan, cultural support teams exemplified this: All-female units leveraged women's ability to engage local women and children, often inaccessible to male soldiers, gathering intelligence and building trust in ways men could not. This wasn't ideology — it was a force multiplier, increasing lethality by exploiting biological and cultural realities. Cultural support teams proved that recognizing women's distinct capabilities enhances mission success, aligning with the act's focus on results over dogma. But that focus has been lost. The Biden administration buried Women, Peace and Security under progressive mandates: gender advisers, climate security and diversity workshops ignored biological reality in favor of gender-neutral platitudes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's April 2025 decision to end the Pentagon's Women, Peace and Security program reflected this frustration, calling it a 'divisive social justice' distraction. This bureaucratic creep alienates allies, who see such mandates as cultural overreach, undermining the act's grounding in women's distinct roles. Reclaiming Women, Peace and Security begins with restoring its foundation in biological reality — a principle President Trump recently reaffirmed through his executive order recognizing only two sexes. The Women, Peace and Security Act was never meant to serve as a vessel for progressive social experimentation. It was designed to elevate the distinct and often underutilized contributions of women in peacebuilding, diplomacy and security. That requires course correction, not cancellation. First, costly gender quotas and United Nations-imposed compliance mechanisms must be eliminated. These mandates divert resources from mission-critical priorities like military readiness and strategic diplomacy. Second, the program should be predominantly confined to the State Department, where it can strengthen alliances without militarizing a civilian-focused initiative. Third, programming should revive Ivanka Trump's storytelling approach, showcasing real women's successes to build support without progressive preaching. Fourth, within the Department of Defense, Women, Peace and Security principles should inform — not distort — force design. Programs like the aforementioned cultural support teams, which trained female soldiers to gather intelligence and build trust in environments where male soldiers could not, offer a proven model. These are not diversity programs; they are combat multipliers. Finally, for Women, Peace and Security to succeed abroad, it must engage men and boys. Women's empowerment initiatives that ignore traditional power structures or attempt to replace them will fail. Cultural legitimacy matters. True progress complements, rather than erases, local norms. Critics will argue that scaling back risks undermining women's gains. But the original program, which helped Colombia adopt a National Action Plan in 2019, proved its efficacy by focusing on women's lived experiences, not ideological bloat. Others might call for scrapping Women, Peace and Security entirely. Yet abandoning a proven tool — one that recognizes biological reality to boost security and lethality — hands adversaries an edge in unstable regions. A streamlined Women, Peace and Security program, rooted in its 2017 intent, preserves its value while rejecting globalist overreach. The Women, Peace and Security Act was a conservative triumph — a bipartisan policy that leveraged women's unique experiences to serve America's interests. By realigning it with its original roots, the Trump administration can restore the act's promise, delivering a stronger, more lethal America and a more stable world. Meaghan Mobbs, Ph.D., is director for the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women's Forum. She is also the military advocacy and policy liaison for the Coalition for Military Excellence. Mobbs serves as a gubernatorial appointee to the Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors and a presidential appointee to the United States Military Academy — West Point Board of Visitors.
