Politics
Opinion: Trump and other Republicans call Kamala Harris a failed 'border czar.' Here's the truth
Donald Trump, JD Vance and other Republicans incessantly disparage Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris as the Biden administration’s “failed border czar.” That seriously distorts and shortchanges both the immigration policy she pursued and her record in implementing it.
“Border czar” is a gross mischaracterization of Harris’ role in the administration’s immigration policymaking. She was never tasked with fixing border enforcement.
In fact, her remit was to promote a different, complementary approach to controlling unwanted immigration: addressing why migrants felt it necessary to leave their homes.
Experts agree that attacking the factors driving international migration — poverty, joblessness, drug and gang violence, agricultural failures due to climate change, corruption and other rule-of-law challenges — is essential to reducing pressure on our southern border. Absent success on that front, tweaking U.S. border enforcement will never have a lasting impact.
But efforts to address the “root causes” of immigration must be undertaken within a realistic time frame. The drivers of migration have been intensifying for decades or even generations in the countries that produce most of the influx. It will take years — probably extending over several presidential terms — for a root-causes approach to achieve highly visible results.
So investments in addressing root causes aren’t a quick fix, but neglecting them entirely or until the border is “secure” — as Trump and other Republicans insist — only delays sustainable management of immigration. Harris helped lay the groundwork for longer-term solutions through intensive diplomacy with Latin American leaders and other interests.
This points to another requisite of the root-causes strategy: It can’t be implemented unilaterally. It requires often messy, difficult negotiations with other governments, civil society groups, development banks and multinational corporations.
Harris’ aptly named “Partnership for Central America,” launched in July 2021, was such an all-hands effort. It raised more than $5.2 billion in private-sector commitments for job-creating projects in immigration-producing countries. To pull this off, Harris had to maneuver around formidable impediments to effective governance in countries such as Honduras and Guatemala, where authoritarian presidents were deeply implicated in corruption and drug trafficking.
Harris’ first task was to persuade elected officials in the three “Northern Triangle” countries — Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — to get on board with U.S.-led development projects there. Then she had to persuade multinational corporations to finance job creation and bring civil society groups into these public-private partnerships. Diplomacy, fundraising and coalition-building were all necessary for success.
Addressing the causes of migration has another important and unavoidable limitation: It can’t be done on a global scale. The need for sustained diplomacy, coalition-building and corralling of private capital makes that impractical.
Harris’ geographic portfolio was limited to Mexico and the Northern Triangle. When she began working on the project, that small subset of countries accounted for most of the migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.
But as the COVID-19 pandemic abated, the migrants became much more diverse in their national origins. In 2021, dozens of countries — including China, India, Russia and much smaller countries such as Mauritania — began exporting large numbers of migrants. They streamed through Ecuador, Colombia and Panama’s Darién Gap. Millions more poured out of Venezuela due to economic collapse and political violence under Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
By the end of last year, more than half of the migrants arriving at the southern border came from places other than Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries. Suddenly, the challenges of managing migration had become much steeper. This was a sea change in global migration for which Harris was in no way responsible but that enormously complicated her task.
Even so, the vice president’s efforts to implement a narrowly focused root-causes strategy had tangible results. Migration from the Northern Triangle to the U.S. border in recent years has steadily declined even as the flow of Mexicans fleeing a surge of drug cartel violence has increased.
Harris deserves her share of credit for this. The Biden-Harris administration’s record on border enforcement is certainly mixed, but that should not distract from the progress made through Harris’ efforts to address the causes of immigration.
For too many in Latin America, staying home is the worst possible option. If that calculus is ever to change, investments like those championed by Harris must be made — and not treated as a political football.
Nor do mixed results on border enforcement excuse Congress’ abject failure to fix a badly broken immigration system that hasn’t been reformed since the 1990s. Inadequate pathways for legal immigration only encourage unauthorized migration regardless of the causes.
Wayne A. Cornelius is a distinguished professor of political science emeritus at UC San Diego and was the founding director of the university’s Mexican Migration Field Research Program.
SAN FRANCISCO — With the California governor’s race quickly approaching, six candidates will face off Wednesday evening in the first debate since former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race in the aftermath of sexual assault and misconduct allegations.
The debate takes place at a critical moment in the turbulent contest to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. Ballots will start landing in Californians’ mailboxes in less than two weeks, and voters are split by a crowded field of eight prominent candidates. The debate also takes place after former state Controller Betty Yee ended her campaign because of a lack of resources and support in the polls.
Two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton — and four Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer, former Biden administration Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — will take the stage at Nexstar’s KRON4 studios in San Francisco. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, both Democrats, were not invited to participate because of their low polling numbers.
As the candidates strive to distinguish themselves in a crowded field, the debate could include fiery exchanges about the role of money in politics and potential heightened attacks on Becerra, who has surged in the polls since Swalwell dropped out. With the debate taking place on Earth Day, environmental issues are also likely to be raised.
The Wednesday night gathering is the first televised debate in the gubernatorial contest since early February. Last month, USC canceled a debate hours before it was set to begin over mounting criticism that its criteria excluded all major candidates of color.
The 7 p.m. debate is hosted by Nexstar and will be moderated by KTXL FOX40 anchor Nikki Laurenzo and KTLA anchor Frank Buckley. It can be viewed on KRON4 (San Francisco), KTLA5 (Los Angeles), KSWB/KUSI (San Diego), KTXL (Sacramento), KGET (Bakersfield) and KSEE (Fresno). NewsNation will also air the debate.
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
-
Lifestyle4 minutes agoShe built a following of plus-size customers. Why is she closing her L.A. resale shop?
-
Politics10 minutes ago
As primary election nears, top candidates for California governor debate tonight
-
Science16 minutes ago44% of Americans breathe dangerously polluted air. In California, it’s 82%
-
Sports22 minutes agoKings’ close playoff losses to Avalanche stoke confidence and frustration
-
World34 minutes ago‘Blockade and threats’: Iran blames US siege of ports for stalled talks
-
News1 hour agoPentagon says Navy secretary is leaving, the latest departure of a top defense leader
-
New York3 hours agoGunman Who Killed Baby in Brooklyn Was Targeting Her Father, Police Say
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoHow these Detroit farmers are fighting for neighborhood food security