EXCLUSIVE: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow has been wasting no time shaking up the path to American citizenship. And two terrorist attacks in the United States this past week have renewed scrutiny of immigration vetting and national security safeguards.

A gunman rammed a vehicle into Temple Israel Thursday, a synagogue in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, Thursday. One security guard was injured in what officials described as a targeted act of violence against the Jewish community. 

In a separate Thursday incident, authorities say a terrorist attack by a military veteran and ISIS supporter at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, left two people injured and two dead, including the shooter, after the suspect allegedly opened fire inside an ROTC classroom. 

Just weeks into the job in August 2025, Edlow called for a major overhaul of the U.S. naturalization test — blasting the current version as too soft and out of step with what Congress envisioned.

DOJ DIRECTS US ATTORNEYS TO SEEK TO REVOKE CITIZENSHIP OF NATURALIZED AMERICANS OVER CRIME

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Edlow said the civics and English exam, which forms the backbone of the naturalization process, fails to reflect the knowledge and assimilation he believes should be required to become an American.

“The test needs to reflect the letter and the spirit of what Congress intended,” Edlow said. “It’s important for people to understand English, our history, our government … and the way the test is written and executed right now doesn’t meet that bar.”

Under the current format, naturalization applicants must correctly answer six out of 10 civics questions randomly selected from a list of 100, covering topics like the Constitution, U.S. history, geography and civic responsibilities. They must also read one sentence aloud and write one simple sentence correctly in English.

Edlow says that’s not enough. He wants the test to probe deeper — presenting a broader cross-section of U.S. principles — and for English skills to be evaluated throughout the entire naturalization interview, not just in isolated reading and writing exercises.

“I want adjudicators to really be listening and talking throughout the interview,” he said. “Switch up some of the wording … and see if the individuals are still able to comprehend the questions. That’s a better gauge of readiness.”

Edlow said the test must preserve the integrity of the process and reflect assimilation expectations. He also pointed to a recent executive order declaring English the national language, calling language fluency “an imperative part” of the American dream.

The director also took aim at long-standing flaws in the H-1B visa system, which permits U.S. companies to hire high-skilled foreign workers in specialty fields.

KEY IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL VOWS TO END ‘BACKDOOR HIRING PRACTICES’ IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

“Companies are going for the highest-skilled workers but paying them at the lowest wage level,” he said. “That’s undercutting U.S. graduates, especially in STEM fields.”

He cited cases when third-party contracting firms helped employers lay off American workers — sometimes even requiring them to train their own foreign replacements — as evidence of a program being exploited to suppress wages.

Vice President JD Vance has echoed a similar sentiment. In July 2025, he called out Microsoft for laying off around 9,000 American workers while applying for 4,700 H1-B visas. 

“I don’t want companies to fire 9,000 American workers and then to go and say, ‘We can’t find workers here in America.’ That’s a bulls— story.”

The visa program has emerged as a political flashpoint within the GOP, creating a rift between MAGA populists and pro-business conservatives. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said he’d “go to war” in support of the H1-B visa program and branded its Republican opponents “hateful, unrepentant racists.” 

To tighten oversight of the program, Edlow said USCIS will work with the Department of Labor to expand worksite enforcement and ensure that wages and job functions match what’s on paper.

“We want to make sure those brought over are truly commensurate with the roles they’re filling — and not part of a cost-cutting scheme,” he added.

On the issue of welfare-related immigration policy, Edlow said USCIS is preparing to revisit the public charge rule — a legal standard that bars green cards for applicants likely to become reliant on public assistance.

The rule has existed in some form for over a century but was more strictly interpreted during the Trump administration to include certain non-cash benefits like Medicaid or housing aid. The Biden administration returned to guidance that did not take non-cash benefits into account. 

Edlow said changes would take time. 

“It’s something we’ve got to study and get right,” he said. “We need to look at the means-tested benefits being offered and ensure our adjudicators know what to look for to determine if someone would be a burden on U.S. taxpayers.”

Beyond policy changes, Edlow flagged the growing USCIS case backlog as a top operational threat — one he says now carries national security implications.

“Backlogs that continue to grow are nothing short of a national security threat to this country,” he said, blaming the Biden administration for shifting agency resources away from legal immigration priorities in response to record-breaking illegal border crossings.

While he pledged to reduce adjudication times, Edlow warned that shortcuts won’t be part of the strategy.

“There may be short-term pain,” he said. “But we will decrease the backlog at a steady clip while protecting the integrity and security of the system.”

California state librarian Greg Lucas is facing scrutiny from lawmakers after roughly $650,000 tied to a statewide literacy program connected to Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library could not be accounted for.

The issue surfaced during a Thursday Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education hearing, which examined how funds were distributed for California’s participation in the book-gifting program.

Documents shared by the subcommittee as part of its hearing agenda claim that a nonprofit created to help administer the program reported spending roughly $1.2 million, while bank statements provided to Senate budget staff showed $555,000 in expenditures, leaving about $649,000 without supporting documentation.

“I find this to be incredibly concerning,” said state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Pasadena, chair of the subcommittee. “There’s $650,000 that’s been unaccounted for in a program, a bipartisan effort that was intended to increase literacy among children. This is incredibly serious.”

TRUMP ADMIN UNCOVERS ‘STAGGERING’ $8.6 BILLION IN SUSPECTED CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS FRAUD

State Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, also criticized the lack of documentation, saying the situation raised serious concerns about transparency and oversight.

“That makes no sense,” Grove said during the hearing. “And that reeks of horrific no transparency and potential fraud.”

The California state library did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Lawmakers said Senate budget staff had requested financial records from the Strong Reader Partnership, the nonprofit created to help administer the program, multiple times, including receipts, invoices and bank statements to corroborate expenses.

EX-NONPROFIT BOSS ALLEGEDLY SWIPED $1.2M MEANT FOR HOMELESS PROGRAMS TO FUND LAVISH LIFESTYLE, DA SAYS

According to the subcommittee, those requests were made on several occasions between November 2025 and February 2026, but the documentation had not been provided.

During the hearing, Lucas acknowledged that lawmakers had received bank statements accounting for roughly $555,000 in spending but disputed the claim that the funds were unaccounted for.

“I don’t believe that’s correct,” he said. “I mean, we received a final report on the disposition of the money by the Strong Reader Partnership, which has expressed, and we’ve passed this on to you as well, the difficulty in obtaining some of this information because they no longer have any money or members of the partnership since the money was transferred to the Imagination Library.”

He added that his agency has repeatedly asked the nonprofit for additional records and pledged to continue requesting the information.

PROPOSED CALIFORNIA WEALTH TAX DRIVES BILLIONAIRE EXODUS TO FLORIDA REAL ESTATE, LOCALS CONFIRM

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A spokesperson for the state library told ABC10 in a statement: “The California State Library takes seriously its responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability in the taxpayer dollars entrusted to it. The State Library has provided the Legislature with all documentation in its possession and has repeatedly requested additional records from the Strong Reader partnership. The California State Library remains committed to cooperating fully with all legislative oversight and maintaining accountability in the administration of public funds.”

Pérez gave Lucas seven days to produce the financial records, saying the subcommittee expected invoices and receipts detailing how the money was spent.

WASHINGTON — After two weeks of war with Iran, the Trump administration is being forced to temper its expectations of a swift end to the conflict, with U.S. intelligence and defense officials expressing doubt it can achieve the overthrow of Iran’s government and the destruction of its nuclear program through military means.

It was an outcome forewarned by analysts at the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon, who together alerted the administration to the pitfalls full-scale war with Iran would bring before President Trump decided to proceed, two U.S. officials told The Times, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Certain military goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out at the start of the war are still seen as achievable at the Pentagon, with U.S. and Israeli strikes making steady progress degrading Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, its drone program and its navy.

But a prewar U.S. intelligence assessment, that an air assault was unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic, still holds, with the intelligence community now casting doubt the assault had any more political effect than to radicalize a government already devoted to the destruction of Israel and harming the United States.

Concern has only grown that Iran’s new government will make the fateful strategic decision to build a bomb after the war, unless Trump decides to escalate the conflict with a perilous ground invasion. And the White House now contends with a new mission imperative, created by its decision to launch the war itself, of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to vital shipping traffic that carries 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquid natural gas supply.

The foreign policy strategy Trump publicly laid out as his playbook for the conflict — to come down hard on the government, decapitating its leadership, and hope the remnants would seek mercy — has not worked, with Tehran looking for new ways to expand the war and maximize pain for the U.S. administration.

Trump has minimized the conflict as an “excursion” that would end “very soon,” while also calling it a war, vowing to take the time he needs to “finish the job.” He says it will conclude whenever he decides to end it.

It remains possible that a declaration from Trump that the fighting is over results in a ceasefire, as it did in June of last year, when Trump demanded an end to 12 days of war between Iran and Israel. But the Iranians have a vote, too — and senior leadership in the Islamic Republic have made plain they plan to continue fighting this time whether Trump likes it or not.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that an additional expeditionary unit of 2,500 Marines was being deployed to the region to support the effort.

“Starting wars is an easy matter,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on social media. “Ending them does not happen with a few tweets.

“We will not leave you until you admit your mistake and pay its price,” he added.

It is a sore lesson for a president whose decade in public life has been distinguished by an exceptional ability to warp reality to his liking.

“The White House has created a dilemma for America: If it declares victory and ends the war, it leaves in place a weakened Iranian government with the means and renewed motivation to pursue nuclear weapons,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“If it presses on with the war,” Pauly added, “it risks the kind of mission creep that may eventually find American boots on the ground.”

In a news release last week, the White House said that, “from the opening hours of this historic campaign, the objectives were clear: obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will never acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Yet, at the start of the operation, Trump issued a promise to the people of Iran that, at the end of the U.S.-Israeli campaign, Iran’s military and paramilitary infrastructure would be so badly hobbled that a rare, generational opportunity would emerge for them to take their government back.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

Trump said in the days that followed he would need to have a say over the next ruler, after assassinating the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the Iranian system of clerics and militants defied the president, selecting in Khamenei’s son a man viewed as even more hostile to the West than his father was.

Israeli leadership, too, set out regime change as a goal of the war. Yet even their officials now say that a substantial leadership change in Tehran is an unlikely result.

Trump would go on to insist on the “unconditional surrender” from the Iranian government, a demand that he later said would be satisfied by the incapacitation of Iran’s military.

Repeating his conviction that the war will end soon, Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in an interview Friday that he would order an end to the fighting “when I feel it. When I feel it in my bones.”

“The problem with the administration’s approach is that it has constantly shifted its goals. Some are achievable, such as degrading Iran’s conventional force. Others are not, such as picking the next leader of Iran,” said Ray Takeyh, a scholar on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The mixed messages have led to confusion at home,” Takeyh added, “and lack of planning for oil shortages and getting the Americans out of the region shows that process and personnel can actually matter.”

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign was always designed to unfold in three phases: degrading Iran’s ability to wage war, reducing Iran’s ability to repress democratic forces inside the country, and finally, encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.

“The president controls the strategy, but no president fully controls the endgame because the regime gets a vote,” Dubowitz said. “The endgame is not a scripted political transition directed from Washington. It is a regime under simultaneous military, economic, and internal pressure — to strip of its war-making and repression capabilities — and whether that produces succession, fracture, or collapse will ultimately be decided in Tehran.”

Whether the conflict will achieve the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is an equally grave question in Washington, where officials are debating over a list of stark options on how to physically destroy, bury or retrieve the fissile material that Tehran could use to build a nuclear weapon — a threat seen as only more grave under the stewardship of an angry and vengeful government.

“The war was publicly justified, to the extent it was justified at all, in terms of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. Very few strikes have been directed against nuclear-related targets, however — almost certainly because those that survived last June’s attacks are invulnerable to air attack,” said James Acton, co‑director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Unless the U.S. and Israel attempt high-risk special forces operations or a ground incursion,” he added, “Iran will end the war with its surviving nuclear infrastructure largely intact and greater incentives to build the bomb.”

Pauly agreed it is unrealistic to expect the United States and Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear program through air power alone. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran has roughly 440 kilograms — about 970 pounds — of 60% highly enriched uranium, possibly spread across multiple facilities.

“Securing this material will require either U.S. ground troops or, after some coercive bargain is reached, international inspectors,” Pauly said.

In an exchange with reporters last week at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had few details to offer on what U.S. options were to remove or eliminate an accessible uranium stockpile, enriched to near weapons grade, that had been buried in a U.S. operation last year intended on obliterating the nuclear threat.

Diplomacy, he suggested, might be required to secure the material.

“I will say we have a range of options, up to and including Iran deciding that they will give those up,” he told reporters, “which of course we would welcome.”