Connect with us

News

Takeaways From Marco Rubio’s Senate Hearing

Published

on

Takeaways From Marco Rubio’s Senate Hearing

Marco Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida named by Donald J. Trump to be the next secretary of state, was warmly welcomed by senators from both parties at his confirmation hearing on Wednesday. He has served for years on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees in the Senate, and is known as a lawmaker devoted to the details of foreign policy.

“I believe you have the skills and are well qualified to serve as secretary of state,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of Hampshire, said in her opening remarks.

The notable lack of tension at the hearing indicated that Mr. Rubio would almost certainly be confirmed quickly.

From the lines of questioning, it was clear what senators want Mr. Rubio and the Trump administration to focus on: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Mr. Rubio himself pointed to those four powers — what some call an “axis” — in his opening remarks.

They “sow chaos and instability and align with and fund radical terror groups, then hide behind their veto power at the United Nations and the threat of nuclear war,” he said. As permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, China and Russia have veto power over U.N. resolutions.

Advertisement

Mr. Rubio repeatedly singled out the Chinese Communist Party for criticism, and, unlike Mr. Trump, he had no praise for any of the autocrats running those nations.

He did say the administration’s official policy on Ukraine would be to try to end the war that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia started, and that leaders in both Kyiv and Moscow would need to make concessions. U.S. officials say Russia has drawn its allies and partners into the war, relying on North Korea for troops and arms, Iran for weapons and training, and China for a rebuilding of the Russian defense industrial base.

Mr. Rubio defended Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza, blaming Hamas for using civilians as human shields and calling the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, most of them non-combatants, “one of the terrible things about war.”

He expressed concern about threats to Israel’s security. “You cannot coexist with armed elements at your border who seek your destruction and evisceration, as a state. You just can’t,” he said.

When asked whether he believed Israel’s annexing Palestinian territory would be contrary to peace and security in the Middle East, Mr. Rubio did not give a direct answer, calling it “a very complex issue.”

Advertisement

Mr. Rubio’s hearing was about two hours in when the committee’s chairman announced that Israel and Hamas had sealed an agreement to begin a temporary cease-fire and partial hostage release in Gaza. An initial hostage and cease-fire agreement, reached in November 2023, fell apart after a week.

Mr. Rubio called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized, “a very important alliance” and insisted that Mr. Trump was a NATO supporter. But he also backed Mr. Trump’s argument that a strong NATO requires Europe to spend more money on its collective defense.

The United States, he said, must choose whether it will serve “a primary defense role or a backstop” to a self-reliant Europe.

Some prominent Trump supporters remain distrustful of Mr. Rubio. They recall his vote to certify the 2020 election results despite Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud. And they consider Mr. Rubio’s foreign policy record dangerously interventionist.

Mr. Rubio has long been a hawkish voice on national security issues, often in ways that clash with Mr. Trump’s views, even if the ideas are conventional ones among centrist Republican and Democratic politicians.

Advertisement

In the past, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has criticized Mr. Rubio for advocating aggressive American intervention overseas. Mr. Paul has been outspoken in pushing for less use of U.S. troops abroad and is skeptical about whether economic sanctions can lead to positive outcomes.

On Wednesday, Mr. Paul pointedly asked Mr. Rubio whether he saw any way to work with China rather then persisting in attacks on Beijing, and he also questioned the wisdom of many American and European policymakers who insisted that Ukraine must be admitted to NATO.

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