Connect with us

News

Bishop Asks Trump to ‘Have Mercy’ on Immigrants and Gay Children

Published

on

Bishop Asks Trump to ‘Have Mercy’ on Immigrants and Gay Children

Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde was nearing the end of her sermon for the inaugural prayer service on Tuesday when she took a breath and looked directly at President Donald J. Trump.

“I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now,” said Bishop Budde, the leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. “There are gay, lesbian and transgender children in Democratic, Republican and independent families, some who fear for their lives.”

The direct appeal to Mr. Trump, at the start of the first full day of his presidency, was a remarkable moment. Twenty-four hours after he had reclaimed the highest office in the land, summoning tech billionaires as witnesses and pulling off a sweeping display of power by signing of a flurry of executive orders, he was suddenly confronted by an extraordinary act of public resistance from an unlikely source: a soft-spoken bishop.

“The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals,” Bishop Budde said. “I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away, and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.”

Mr. Trump, seated in the first row of pews in the towering Washington National Cathedral, looked down and then away. Vice President JD Vance raised his eyebrows and looked several times at his wife, Usha Vance, who kept her gaze trained ahead on the bishop. When Bishop Budde finished, Mr. Trump said something to Mr. Vance, who shook his head in apparent irritation. Members of the Trump family seated directly behind them appeared to look at one another, noticeably perturbed. Eric Trump, Mr. Trump’s middle son, shook his head.

Advertisement

It was not how Mr. Trump has generally been spoken to as he returns to the White House. Since winning the election, he has been courted by powerful business leaders and politicians alike, including many who kept their distance during his first term. Just the day before, he celebrated his return to office with an inauguration in the Capitol Rotunda, a rally surrounded by supporters and a succession of inaugural balls. Even former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. greeted Mr. Trump at the White House by saying, “Welcome home.”

Bishop Budde’s comments came a day after Mr. Trump issued a flurry of executive orders focused on transgender rights and immigration.

The appeal by the pastor clearly grabbed Mr. Trump’s attention. Asked by a reporter what he thought of the service, the president said: “Did you like it? Did you find it exciting? Not too exciting, was it?

“I didn’t think it was a good service, no,” Mr. Trump continued. “They could do much better.”

In an interview, Bishop Budde said she had decided to speak to the president directly because “of the fear that I have seen and experienced among our people — people that I know and love, both within the immigrant community and within the L.G.B.T.Q. community, and how terrified so many are.”

Advertisement

She said she was concerned about “the level of license to be really quite cruel” that some people feel now.

“I wasn’t necessarily calling the president out. I was trying to say, ‘The country has been entrusted to you,’” Bishop Budde said. “And one of the qualities of a leader is mercy, right? Mercy. And to be mindful of the people who are scared.”

Bishop Budde is not the only prominent clergy member to call attention to the fear caused by Mr. Trump’s agenda. Pope Francis on Sunday called Mr. Trump’s plans for mass deportations “a disgrace.”

Mr. Trump began his presidency on Monday with executive actions that aimed to turn his campaign rhetoric into tangible policies, including one that rescinded a Biden administration order that sought to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

Mr. Trump’s new order, the administration said, seeks to defend women against “gender ideology extremism” that allows biological males to undermine their rights and privacy. And the definitions it sets forth go further to more explicitly define “sex.”

Advertisement

Under the order signed by Mr. Trump on Monday, males and females would be defined at “conception,” the text states. Someone who eventually produces “the large reproductive cell” would be deemed female, the order says. A male would be defined as the person who eventually “produces the small reproductive cell.”

The order also says that the federal government would no longer recognize “gender identity,” and only “sex” as defined by “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.”

The order also prohibits the use of federal funds for any promotion of “gender ideology” through grants or other government programming, as well as the use of public funding for transition-related medical procedures in prisons.

The order effectively defines transgender Americans out of existence.

“At its core, this executive order is an appallingly cruel effort to make transgender people strangers to the law and push them back into the closet,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump also issued multiple immigration-related executive orders on Monday that suspended refugee admissions, severely restricted asylum for migrants and made clear that he intended to deploy the military to the southern border. The border, however, remains relatively calm after a record number of illegal crossings earlier in the Biden administration.

The Trump administration also rescinded a Biden policy that directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to not make arrests at schools, places of worship and other places described as “sensitive locations.”

Throughout his campaign, and during his first term, Mr. Trump often portrayed all migrants crossing the border illegally as criminals. While sporadic crimes by migrants have gained national attention in recent years, homeland security officials themselves acknowledge that most people crossing the border are fleeing poverty or violence and seeking a better life.

“There are times when he talks of immigrants in broad strokes that feel as if the image portrayed is that all immigrants who are coming into the country are dangerous,” Bishop Budde said. “And I know that’s not true. It’s not true.”

Advertisement

News

What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody

Published

on

What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody

BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation helped galvanize opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, was released from immigration detention on Thursday, and a judge has temporarily blocked any further efforts to detain him.

Abrego Garcia currently can’t be deported to his home country of El Salvador thanks to a 2019 immigration court order that found he had a “well founded fear” of danger there. However, the Trump administration has said he cannot stay in the U.S. Over the past few months, government officials have said they would deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia.

Abrego Garcia is fighting his deportation in federal court in Maryland, where his attorneys claim the administration is manipulating the immigration system to punish him for successfully challenging his earlier deportation.

Here’s what to know about the latest developments in the case:

Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country.

Advertisement

While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, despite the earlier court ruling.

When Abrego Garcia was deported in March, he was held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.

The Trump administration initially fought efforts to bring him back to the U.S. but eventually complied after the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. He returned to the U.S. in June, only to face an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia was held in a Tennessee jail for more than two months before he was released on Friday, Aug. 22, to await trial in Maryland under home detention.

His freedom lasted a weekend. On the following Monday, he reported to the Baltimore immigration office for a check-in and was immediately taken into immigration custody. Officials announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, but they were blocked by an order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland.

On Thursday, after months of legal filings and hearings, Xinis ruled that Abrego Garcia should be released immediately. Her ruling hinged on what was likely a procedural error by the immigration judge who heard his case in 2019.

Advertisement

Normally, in a case like this, an immigration judge will first issue an order of removal. Then the judge will essentially freeze that order by issuing a “withholding of removal” order, according to Memphis immigration attorney Andrew Rankin.

In Abrego Garcia’s case, the judge granted withholding of removal to El Salvador because he found Abrego Garcia’s life could be in danger there. However, the judge never took the first step of issuing the order of removal. The government argued in Xinis’ court that the order of removal could be inferred, but the judge disagreed.

Without a final order of removal, Abrego Garcia can’t be deported, Xinis ruled.

The only way to get an order of removal is to go back to immigration court and ask for one, Rankin said. But reopening the immigration case is a gamble because Abrego Garcia’s attorneys would likely seek protection from deportation in the form of asylum or some other type of relief.

One wrinkle is that immigration courts are officially part of the executive branch, and the judges there are not generally viewed as being as independent as federal judges.

Advertisement

“There might be independence in some areas, but if the administration wants a certain result, by all accounts it seems they’re going to exert the pressure on the individuals to get that result,” Rankin said. “I hope he gets a fair shake, and two lawyers make arguments — somebody wins, somebody loses — instead of giving it to an immigration judge with a 95% denial rate, where everybody in the world knows how it’s gonna go down.”

Alternatively, the government could appeal Xinis’ order to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and try to get her ruling overturned, Rankin said. If the appeals court agreed with the government that the final order of removal was implied, there could be no need to reopen the immigration case.

In compliance with Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia was released from immigration detention in Pennsylvania on Thursday evening and allowed to return home for the first time in months. However, he was also told to report to an immigration officer in Baltimore early the next morning.

Fearing that he would be detained again, his attorneys asked Xinis for a temporary restraining order. Xinis filed that order early Friday morning. It prohibits immigration officials from taking Abrego Garcia back into custody, at least for the time being. A hearing on the issue could happen as early as next week.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case where he is charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.

Advertisement

Prosecutors claim he accepted money to transport, within the United States, people who were in the country illegally. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

Abrego Garcia has asked U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw to dismiss the smuggling charges on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution.”

Crenshaw earlier found “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive” and said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” Crenshaw specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on a Fox News Channel program that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.

The two sides have been sparring over whether senior Justice Department officials, including Blanche, can be required to testify in the case.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Afghan CIA fighters face stark reality in the U.S. : Consider This from NPR

Published

on

Afghan CIA fighters face stark reality in the U.S. : Consider This from NPR

A makeshift memorial stands outside the Farragut West Metro station on December 01, 2025 in Washington, DC. Two West Virginia National Guard troops were shot blocks from the White House on November 26.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

They survived some of the Afghanistan War’s most grueling and treacherous missions. 

But once they evacuated to the U.S., many Afghan fighters who served in “Zero Units” found themselves spiraling. 

Among their ranks was Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the man charged with killing one National Guard member and seriously injuring a second after opening fire on them in Washington, D.C. on Thanksgiving Eve.

Advertisement

NPR’s Brian Mann spoke to people involved in Zero Units and learned some have struggled with mental health since coming to the U.S. At least four soldiers have died by suicide. 

For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.

This episode was produced by Erika Ryan and Karen Zamora. It was edited by Alina Hartounian and Courtney Dorning.

Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power

Published

on

Video: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power

new video loaded: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power

For more than a decade, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has chipped away at Congress’s power to insulate independent agencies from politics. Now, the court has signaled its willingness to expand presidential power once again.

By Ann E. Marimow, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart and Pierre Kattar

December 12, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending