Connect with us

News

Can Germany spend its way out of industrial decline?

Published

on

Can Germany spend its way out of industrial decline?

It took just a few hours for Friedrich Merz to conduct one of the sharpest U-turns in recent political history.

At lunchtime last Friday, Germany’s chancellor-to-be received a sobering briefing on the state of the economy from finance minister Jörg Kukies.

Kukies explained that after two years of stagnation and with more clouds gathering over Europe’s largest economy, Berlin faced a €130bn budget shortfall over four years and dwindling growth potential, according to people with knowledge of the presentation.

Shortly afterwards, Donald Trump had a public shouting match in the Oval Office with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, accusing the Ukrainian leader of not wanting peace with Russia, Kyiv’s aggressor, and not being grateful for Washington’s support. For Washington’s allies in Europe, the extraordinary scenes were further evidence that the Trump administration had turned hostile.

Watching all this unfold, Merz decided “there was no time to lose”, says a person close to his thinking.

Advertisement
Volodymyr Zelenskyy with Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week. Within days of the meeting, Germany’s CDU and SPD parties agreed to inject hundreds of billions into the country’s military and ageing infrastructure © Pool/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Within days, the centre-right leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) struck a deal with the Social Democratic party (SPD), his likely coalition partner in the next government, which would transform the way Germany manages its economy.

The two parties agreed to loosen the country’s constitutional debt brake and inject hundreds of billions into Germany’s military and ageing infrastructure — a breakthrough upending more than two decades of conservative fiscal dogma.

Under the agreement, which still has to be approved by parliament with a two-thirds majority, Berlin would be able to raise as much debt as needed to equip the Bundeswehr. In return for its support on defence, the SPD secured the creation of a €500bn, 10-year infrastructure fund to modernise the country’s roads, bridges, energy and communications networks — one of the party’s flagship campaign pledges.

It was time to adopt a “whatever it takes” approach to defence in light of the “threats to freedom and peace” in Europe, Merz said on Tuesday when he announced the deal alongside the leaders of his Bavarian sister party CSU and the SPD.

Not only does the agreement represent a stark departure from the brand of economic orthodoxy that has been dominant in Germany, it also accelerates a move away from decades of military restraint after the second world war.

Advertisement
Line chart of Defence spending as a % of GDP showing German military spending has long been relatively low, but rose after the Russian invasion of Ukraine

“It is a huge shift away from this stance of ‘You make do with the money you’ve got, rather than borrow’ that has been the pillar of the modern German economy, and has been something Germans have really prided themselves in,” says historian Katja Hoyer.

“It signals that Germany is going to play a bigger role on the world stage, but also that Germany will look more after its own interests.”

The prospect of huge investments into the defence sector has also fuelled hopes Germany could halt its industrial and technological decline by helping manufacturers and engineers find a new purpose and new markets — with positive effects rippling through the Eurozone.

This is “one of the most important shifts in German economic policy” since the second world war, says Vikram Aggarwal, investment manager at Jupiter Fund Management, as Germany adapts to a “multipolar word” where countries and regions “will have to increasingly provide for their own defence”.

According to Joe Kaeser, former chief of German engineering giant Siemens, now chair of Siemens Energy and Daimler Truck: “It means we are going to be back, Germany — we don’t know exactly how, but this is what we are going to achieve.”


With potentially more than €1tn in additional debt over the next decade, economists have compared the fiscal stimulus to the country’s reunification in 1990, when the government led by CDU chancellor Helmut Kohl poured billions into the former eastern communist states.

Advertisement

The effects on Germany’s industry should be significant, economists, policymakers and business executives believe, as defence contractors help replace part of the shrinking automotive base and infrastructure projects jolt the construction sector back into life.

“One should not underestimate what confidence does on decision-making for investment and employment,” says Kaeser. “This [deal] is a priceless effort to set out a mission — to say this is what we’re going to do: this landing on the moon.”

BNP says that the announcement can deliver “a positive confidence shock”, galvanising consumers and companies. The German economy — stuck in a rut for the past two years — could expand 0.7 per cent as soon as 2025, compared to 0.2 per cent growth in a previous scenario, the bank estimates.

Economists predict the debt-to-GDP ratio, currently at 63 per cent, will still be far lower than that of France or Italy. While German stocks soared, the country’s borrowing costs, traditionally the lowest in the Eurozone, jumped by the most since the 1990s, as investors adjusted to Berlin’s newfound boldness.

The new package would accelerate industrial shifts already under way since outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz set up a special €100bn military fund in 2022, in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. At the time, he described the move as Zeitenwende — historic turning point — in his nation’s approach to defence and security. Germany is the second largest supplier of arms to Ukraine behind the US.

Advertisement

The race to re-arm could be a much-needed boost for German manufacturing, which has been hit by the crisis in carmaking, looming trade wars, and growing competition from cheap Chinese steel and car imports.

Rheinmetall workers refurbish a Leopard tank in Unterluess, Germany. the weapons maker, whose stock has nearly doubled this year, is converting some of its car plants to produce military equipment
Rheinmetall workers refurbish a Leopard tank in Unterluess, Germany. the weapons maker, whose stock has nearly doubled this year, is converting some of its car plants to produce military equipment © Hannibal Hanschke/EPA-EFE

German weapons maker Rheinmetall, whose stock has nearly doubled this year, is converting some of its own domestic car-part plants to produce military equipment. Last month Franco-German tank maker KNDS agreed to take over and convert a train-making factory from Alstom in the eastern town of Görlitz to produce parts for battle tanks and other military vehicles.

Hensoldt, a state-owned maker of sensors and radars, is in talks to hire teams of software engineers from Continental and Bosch, two of Germany’s largest automotive suppliers, which together have announced over 10,000 job cuts in the past year.

Excitement spread among Deutsche Bahn staff this week, at the thought that the state-owned railway known for its delayed trains and signalling failures would receive the money to implement a €53bn renovation plan stuck in limbo since the collapse of Scholz’s coalition in November.

Boris Pistorius, SPD defence minister, has been one of the most vocal advocates for debt brake reform. German’s most popular politician, who hopes to remain in his post under a Merz-led coalition, described this week’s announcement as “a truly far-reaching, historic decision”, saying: “We are taking responsibility for our security not only as Germany, but also for our Nato partners.”


That Merz, of all German politicians, would orchestrate such a dramatic policy shift, has startled many in Germany. A staunch Atlanticist in the tradition of postwar chancellor Konrad Adenauer, the 69-year-old former BlackRock senior adviser has built a reputation as a supply-side conservative sceptical of state intervention.

Advertisement

During the campaign, he vowed to cut taxes, regulation and welfare benefits. While he did not rule out a reform of the borrowing limits, he insisted that budget priorities first be set and cuts decided.

“It’s a typical ‘Nixon-goes-to-China’ moment,” says a person close to the negotiations.

“You don’t choose the historic moments in which you live,” says Sophia Besch, senior fellow in the Europe Program at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Merz, as a transatlantacist, would not have chosen to be the chancellor overseeing the divorce with the US.”

Line chart of General government gross debt as a % of GDP showing Years of fiscal caution have left Germany with a much lower public debt burden than France or Italy

Merz has no choice but to act quickly, his allies argue. His only chance of securing a supermajority to pass the constitutional amendments is to use the outgoing parliament, which can be reconvened until March 25.

Beyond that date, the far-right Alternative for Germany and far-left Die Linke, which oppose reforming the debt brake to fund more defence spending, will enjoy a blocking minority. Merz still needs to win over the Greens to pass the bills.

“Merz is totally convinced that we need money for defence. We don’t know how much, but we know that after March 25, a minority of Putin-friendly parties can stop any kind of additional defence money for the foreseeable future,” says Roland Koch, a veteran CDU politician and close ally of Merz. “Only the Social Democrats and the Greens can be allies, and you have to pay a price — the €500bn fund for infrastructure is the price.”

Advertisement

Merz succeeded in sealing a defence pact with the SPD before a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels on Thursday. As chancellor-in-waiting he could not officially attend the gathering, which was designed to co-ordinate the bloc’s response to Trump’s efforts to negotiate a settlement with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine — Scholz is still Germany’s caretaker chancellor.

But Merz managed to steal the show, flying to the Belgian capital the day before to meet Nato chief Mark Rutte, EU diplomatic head Kaja Kallas and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen.

On Thursday in Brussels, when asked about his government talks with the SPD on the sidelines of a meeting of Europe’s centre-right leaders, he quipped: “We are on good speaking terms . . . when it comes to spending money!”

Friedrich Merz, left, with Nato secretary general Mark Rutte in Brussels. While German stocks soared after the CDU-SPD deal, the country’s borrowing costs jumped by the most since the 1990s
Merz, left, with Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte in Brussels on Wednesday. While German stocks soared after the CDU-SPD deal, the country’s borrowing costs jumped by the most since the 1990s © NATO/dpa

Back home however, Merz is facing two weeks of tricky legislative hurdles and institutional obstacles.

“A lot of people are very sceptical,” says a senior Bundeswehr commander, who warned of sluggish procurement and vast manpower deficiencies. Addressing those problems, he said, was “not going to take months, it’s going to take years”.

Merz’s package includes a plan to overhaul defence procurement. But Christian Mölling, Europe director at the Bertelsmann Foundation, a think-tank, says that trying to enact structural reforms while also spending much larger sums of money would be like performing open heart surgery. “While it is pumping you’re also trying to change something — and that’s an enormous stress.”

Advertisement

The same logic applies to infrastructure projects, says Jens Südekum, a professor of economics at Düsseldorf’s Heinrich Heine University. Not only must policymakers allocate the money wisely to maximise impact on growth, they also needed to speed up implementation.

There could be more immediate political snags. The Greens, furious at Merz’s sudden conversion after years of opposing their calls for debt brake reform, have decided to make him sweat, heralding hard bargaining until the old Bundestag is reconvened next week.

But most analysts expect the Greens to support the package in return for assurances that part of the money will go towards the green transition.

Another difficulty for the CDU/CSU and the SPD will be to re-mobilise all their outgoing MPs, who may have little incentive to abide by party discipline when it comes to attendance or voting.

Hoyer believes that the increasing pressure — external from Trump, internal with a resurgent far right and far left — is likely to unite Germany’s mainstream parties.

Advertisement

“This grand coalition that isn’t so grand any more is keen to prove that this is a new start,” she says. “Domestically, they’re quite aware that they’ve only got four years. And if they don’t do anything, then the AfD and Die Linke will probably increase [their support] further.”

Additional reporting by Patricia Nilsson in Frankfurt and Ben Hall in Brussels

Data visualisation by Keith Fray

News

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Published

on

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

new video loaded: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

transcript

transcript

Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. A disaster. What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turn out are American citizens. I could talk about the culture that’s been created here. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, when I spoke to Alex’s parents, they told me that you calling him a domestic terrorist — this was directly from them — the day after he was killed, a nurse in our V.A., Alex — one of the most hurtful things they could ever imagine was said by you about their son. Do you have anything you want to say to Alex Pretti’s parents? Ma’am, I did not call him a domestic terrorist. I said It appeared to be an incident of — I think the parents saw it for what it was. In a hearing — recent hearing before the HSGAC committee, C.B.P. and ICE officials testified under oath that their agencies did not inform you that Pretti was a domestic terrorist — during that hearing, stated during that hearing, I was getting reports from the ground, from agents at the scene, and I would say that it was a chaotic scene. How did you think that calling them domestic terrorists at that scene was somehow going to calm the situation? The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.

Advertisement
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

By Christina Kelso and Jackeline Luna

March 3, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

Published

on

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

The Trump administration is sending pregnant unaccompanied minors to a South Texas shelter (above) flagged as medically inadequate by officials from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The facility is run by a for-profit contractor called Urban Strategies.

Patricia Lim/KUT News


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Patricia Lim/KUT News

The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas. The decision was made over urgent objections from some of the administration’s own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need.

That’s according to seven officials who work at the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which takes custody of children who cross the border without a parent or legal guardian, or are separated from family by immigration authorities. The children remain in ORR’s care until they can be released to an adult or deported, or turn 18.

All of the officials asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

Advertisement

Since late July, more than a dozen pregnant minors have been placed at the Texas facility, which is in the small border city of San Benito. Some were as young as 13, and at least half of those taken in so far became pregnant as a result of rape, the officials said. Their pregnancies are considered high risk by definition, particularly for the youngest girls.

“This group of kids is clearly recognized as our most vulnerable,” one of the officials said. Rank-and-file staff, the official said, are “losing sleep over it, wondering if kids are going to be placed in programs where they’re not going to have access to the care they need.”

The move marks a sharp departure from longstanding federal practice, which placed pregnant, unaccompanied migrant children in ORR shelters or foster homes around the country that are equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies.

The ORR officials said they were never told why the girls are being concentrated in a single location, let alone in this particular shelter in Texas. But they — along with more than a dozen former government officials, health care professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys — worry the Trump administration is knowingly putting the children at risk to advance an ideological goal: denying them access to abortion by placing them in a state where it’s virtually banned.

“This is 100% and exclusively about abortion,” said Jonathan White, a longtime federal health official who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program for part of President Trump’s first term. White, who recently retired from the government, said the administration tried and failed to restrict abortion access for unaccompanied minors in 2017. “Now they casually roll out what they brutally fought to accomplish last time and didn’t.”

Advertisement

Asked if the administration is sending pregnant children to San Benito to restrict their access to abortion, HHS said in a statement that the allegation was “completely inaccurate.”

In an earlier statement, the department said that “ORR’s placement decisions are guided by child welfare best practices and are designed to ensure each child is housed in the safest, most developmentally appropriate setting, including for children who are pregnant or parenting.”

But several of the ORR officials took issue with the department’s statement. “ORR is supposed to be a child welfare organization,” one of them said. “Putting pregnant kids in San Benito is not a decision you make when you care about children’s safety.”

ORR’s acting director, Angie Salazar, instructed agency staff to send “any pregnant children” to San Benito beginning July 22, 2025, according to an internal email obtained as part of a six-month investigation by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom, public media collaboratives that worked together to produce this story.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.
hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Several of the officials said a handful of pregnant girls have mistakenly been placed in other shelters because immigration authorities didn’t know they were pregnant when they were transferred to ORR custody.

Since the July order, none of the pregnant girls at the San Benito facility have experienced major medical problems, according to the ORR officials and Aimee Korolev, deputy director of ProBAR, an organization that provides legal services to children there. They said several of the girls have given birth and are detained with their infants.

But ORR officials interviewed for this story said they worry the shelter is only one high-risk pregnancy away from catastrophe.

“I feel like we’re just waiting for something terrible to happen,” one of the officials said.

‘Blown away by the level of risk’

Advertisement

There are dozens of ORR shelters or foster homes across the country that are designated to care for pregnant unaccompanied children, according to several of the ORR officials, with 12 in Texas alone. None of them could recall a time when all of the pregnant minors in the agency’s custody were concentrated in one shelter.

Detaining them in San Benito, Texas, doctors and public health experts said, is a dangerous gambit.

“It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are,” said Annie Leone, a nurse midwife who recently spent five years caring for pregnant and postpartum migrant women and girls at a large family shelter not far from San Benito. “So, to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”

The specialized obstetric care that exists in Texas is mostly available in its larger cities, hours from San Benito. And several factors, including the high number of uninsured patients, have eroded the availability of health care across the state.

Furthermore, Texas’ near-ban on abortion has been especially devastating to obstetric care. The law allows an exception in cases where the pregnant person’s life is in danger or one of her bodily functions is at risk, but doctors have been confused as to what that means.

Advertisement

Many doctors have left to practice elsewhere, and those who’ve stayed are often scared to perform procedures they worry could come with criminal charges. While Texas passed a law clarifying the exceptions last year, experts have said it may not be enough to assuage doctors’ fears.

Several maternal health experts listed the potential dangers for the girls at the San Benito shelter: If one of them develops an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus), if she miscarries or if her water breaks too early and she gets an infection, the emergency care she needs could be delayed or denied by doctors wary of the abortion ban.

Getting the care that is available could take too long to save her life or the baby’s, they added.

Adolescents are also more likely to give birth early, which can be life-threatening for both mother and baby. The youngest face complications during labor and delivery because their pelvises aren’t fully developed, said Dr. Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, an obstetrician in Washington state who specializes in adolescent pregnancy.

“These are young adolescents who are still going through puberty,” she said. “Their bodies are still changing.”

Advertisement

Pregnant girls who recently endured the often harrowing journey to the U.S. face even more risk, obstetrics experts said. Experts who work with migrant children say many are raped along the way and contract sexually transmitted infections that can be dangerous during pregnancy. Add to that little to no access to prenatal care or proper nourishment, and then the trauma of being detained.

“You couldn’t set up a worse scenario,” said Dr. Blair Cushing, who runs a women’s health clinic in McAllen, about 45 minutes from San Benito. “I’m kind of blown away by the level of risk that they’re concentrating in this facility.”

A history of problems

The San Benito shelter is owned and operated by Urban Strategies, a for-profit company that has contracted with the federal government to care for unaccompanied children for more than a decade, according to USAspending.gov.

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement

The main building, an old tan brick Baptist Church, occupies a city block in downtown San Benito, a quiet town of about 25,000. The church was converted to a migrant shelter in 2015 and was managed by two other contractors before Urban Strategies took it over in 2021.

On a fall day last year, there were no signs of activity at the facility, though children’s lawn toys and playground equipment were visible behind a wooden fence. A guard was stationed at one of the entrances.

“It’s pretty quiet, just like it is today,” said Meliza Fonseca, who lives nearby. “That’s the way it is every day.”

She said she occasionally sees kids playing in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Reached by email, the founder and president of Urban Strategies, Lisa Cummins, wrote that the company is “deeply committed to the care and well-being of the children we serve,” and directed any questions about ORR-contracted shelters to the federal government.

Advertisement

When asked about the San Benito facility, HHS wrote that “Urban Strategies has a long-standing record of delivering high-quality care to pregnant unaccompanied minors, with a consistently low staff turnover.”

But the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said that as recently as 2024, staff members at the shelter failed to arrange timely medical appointments for pregnant girls or immediately share critical health information with the federal agency and discharged some of them without arrangements to continue their medical care.

ORR barred the shelter from receiving pregnant girls from September to December of 2024 while Urban Strategies implemented a remediation plan, but the plan did not add staff or enhance their qualifications, the officials said.

Some of the officials said ORR’s leadership was provided with a list of shelters that are better prepared to handle children with high-risk pregnancies. All of those shelters are outside Texas, in regions where the full range of necessary medical care is available. Yet the directive to place them at San Benito remains in place.

“It’s cruel, it’s just cruel,” one of the officials said. “They don’t care about any of these kids. They’re playing politics with children’s health.”

Advertisement

‘A dress rehearsal’

Jonathan White, who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program from January of 2017 to March of 2018, said he wasn’t surprised to learn that the new administration is moving pregnant unaccompanied children to Texas.

“I’ve been expecting this since Trump returned to office,” White said in an interview.

He said he views the San Benito order as a continuation of an anti-abortion policy shift that began in 2017, which “ultimately proved to be a dress rehearsal for the current administration.”

Scott Lloyd, the agency’s director at the time, denied girls in ORR custody permission to end their pregnancies, court records show. Lloyd also required the girls to get counseling about the benefits of motherhood and the harms of abortion and personally pleaded with some of them to reconsider.

Advertisement

“I worked to treat all of the children in ORR care with dignity, including the unborn children,” Lloyd told the newsrooms in an email.

In the fall of 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Lloyd and the Trump administration on behalf of pregnant girls in ORR custody. The ACLU argued that denying the girls abortions violated their constitutional rights, established by the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Not long after the lawsuit was filed, White said, he received a late-night phone call from Lloyd, who had a request. He wanted White to transfer an unaccompanied pregnant girl who was seeking an abortion to a migrant shelter in Texas, where, under state law, it would have been too late for her to terminate her pregnancy. White said that he believed following the order would have been unlawful because it might have denied the girl access to legal relief under the lawsuit, so he refused. The girl was not transferred.

Lloyd, who has since left the government, acknowledged making the request but said he didn’t think it was illegal.

The lawsuit was settled in 2020; the first Trump administration agreed not to impede abortion access for migrant youth in federal custody going forward. Four years later, the Biden administration cemented the deal in official regulations: If a child who wanted to terminate her pregnancy was detained in a state where it was not legal, ORR had to move them to a state where it was.

Advertisement

That rule remains in place, and the agency appears to be following it: ORR has transferred two pregnant girls out of Texas since July, though the agency officials said one of the girls chose not to terminate her pregnancy.

But now that Trump is back in office, his administration is working to end the policy.

‘Elegant and simple’

Even before Trump won reelection, policymakers in his circle were planning a renewed attempt to restrict abortion rights for unaccompanied minors.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a politically conservative overhaul of the federal government, called for ORR to stop facilitating abortions for children in its care. The plan advised the government not to detain unaccompanied children in states where abortion is available.

Advertisement

Such a change is now possible, Project 2025 argued, because Roe v. Wade is no longer an obstacle. Since the Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision in 2022, there is no longer a federal right to abortion.

Upon returning to office, Trump signed an executive order “to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

Then, in early July, the Department of Justice reconsidered a longstanding federal law, known as the Hyde Amendment, that governs the use of taxpayer money for abortion. The DOJ concluded that the government cannot pay to transport detainees from one state to another to facilitate abortion access, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

And now, ORR is working to rescind the Biden-era requirement that pregnant girls requesting an abortion be moved to states where it’s available. On Jan. 23, the agency submitted the proposed change for government approval, though it has not yet published the details.

Several of the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear whether children in the agency’s custody who have been raped or need emergency medical care will still be allowed to get abortions.

Advertisement

“HHS does not comment on pending or pre-decisional rulemaking,” the department wrote when asked for details of the regulatory change. “ORR will continue to comply with all applicable federal laws, including requirements for providing necessary medical care to children in ORR custody.”

The day the change was submitted, an unnamed Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Daily Signal, a conservative news site, “Our goal is to save lives both for these young children that are coming across the border, that are pregnant, and to save the lives of their unborn babies.”

Experts who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear why the government would concentrate pregnant children in one Texas shelter, rather than disperse them at shelters throughout the state. But they said they’re convinced that the San Benito directive and the anti-abortion rule change are meant to work hand in hand: Once pregnant children are placed at the San Benito shelter, the new regulations could mean they cannot be moved out of Texas to get abortions — even if keeping them there puts them at risk.

“It’s so elegant and simple,” said White, the former head of the unaccompanied children program. “All they have to do is send them to Texas.”

Mark Betancourt is a freelance journalist and regular contributor to The California Newsroom.

Advertisement

Mose Buchele with The Texas Newsroom contributed reporting.

This story was produced by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom. The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets that includes NPR, CalMatters, KQED (San Francisco), LAist and KCRW (Los Angeles), KPBS (San Diego) and other stations across the state. The Texas Newsroom is a public radio journalism collaboration that includes NPR, KERA (North Texas), Houston Public Media, KUT (Austin), Texas Public Radio (San Antonio) and other stations across the state.

Continue Reading

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

Trending