Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The real threat of J.D. Vance’s immigration misinformation

J.D. Vance
Luke Johnson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Wen is a physician who teaches asylum medicine, trauma and collective healing. She is a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project in partnership with Massachusetts General Hospital.

By calling Haitian migrants with temporary protection status “illegal, ” vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance is spreading a more subtle and consequential lie than former President Donald Trump’s ridiculous accusations of migrants eating pets.

Our opaque migration pathways are ripe for misinformation that can fuel racist and xenophobic policies. In contrast, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Vance’s opponent, has been a leader in progressive policies on migration such as advocacy for a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” and allowing all Minnesotans to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of documentation status.


Humane policies on migration — particularly for those fleeing forced displacement such as persecution, war and violence — are an acknowledgement that we are all humans bound by a desire to be safe and to protect our families, and that none of us are immune to political and environmental instability.

As of May, 120 million people had been forcibly displaced, according to the UN Refugee Agency. That’s equivalent to more than one-third of the U..S population or to the population of Japan. And it double from just a decade ago. This includes refugees — people granted this specific legal status before arriving in the host country based on five protected grounds of persecution (race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group); asylum seekers, who are applying for this protection; and others who fit into a patchwork of programs that vary by country and geopolitics of the time. One example of this is temporary protection status many Haitian migrants have in the United States, which since its creation by Congress in 1990 allows people coming from certain countries deemed to have unsafe conditions such as war or natural disaster to temporarily live and work in the U.S.

I am an internal medicine physician; one of the most meaningful uses of my license is volunteering as a forensic evaluator for asylum applicants. I was trained to objectively document key parts of people’s reported history of traumas and signs and symptoms of the sequelae, psychological and/or physical, to assist the asylum officer or immigration judge to make their legal determination of asylum. Studies have shown that asylum seekers who had a forensic medical evaluation were twice as likely to be granted asylum than the national average (81 percent vs. 42 percent).

Seeking asylum, besides being an internationally recognized human right under international agreements of the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, is codified in U.S. law. This fundamental human right should not be politicized further. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which manages our immigration and asylum processes, is vulnerable and constantly under the threat of attack and defunding for political reasons. As president, Trump slashed the numbers of refugees allowed by 80 percent, and through his closed-door policies crippled the funding mechanisms for USCIS. This, despite the fact that in the past 15 years, refugees and asylees contributed a net $123 billion profit to federal, state and local governments.

I initially became interested in asylum medicine because as a physician who cares for many migrants and displaced people, I witnessed the intense stress of uncertain migration status on my patients and the toll it takes on their health. One of my middle-aged patient’s chronic abdominal pain flares during his immigration decisions as it may be more bad news about separation from his wife and 10-year-old daughter. Another young woman with depression and insomnia has difficulty following up for her severe asthma as she tiptoes around her abusive partner because her and her children’s immigration status depends on him.

This “ violence of uncertainty ” is particularly harmful for people seeking asylum, refugees and other migrants who suffer from traumas of violence and persecution. Studies from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have shown that longer wait times for asylum applicants are associated with worse physical and emotional health, independent of prior exposure to trauma and violence.

Conducting forensic evaluations for people applying for asylum and other protected statuses is one way to leverage my existing skills and privilege as a clinician to help other asylum applicants move through a byzantine, opaque, understaffed and underfunded system.

To be sure, the asylum process is far from perfect and focuses on an individual’s experience with being personally targeted by persecution on grounds that the U.S. sociopolitical system prioritizes. It does not address other key types of forced displacement such as the climate crisis — already pressing humanitarian disasters bound to become more catastrophic — or even being displaced by war and violence. Furthermore, we continue to detain and criminalize those who are deemed to have entered the U.S. illegally, even if they did so to seek asylum. That’s why we need updated, reformed, humane migration policies to reflect current drivers of migration.

Yet, I continue to participate in this flawed asylum system, much like I continue to go to work in a broken and inequitable health care system with the hopes of making it better. I keep returning because this work reminds me of why I became a physician in the first place: It’s a way to connect with common humanity. More than anything, I am struck by how similar stories are across the world, how fundamentally we are united by a desire for safety and belonging. In nearly every forensic interview, the client shares with me a deep desire to put their worst traumas in the past and plan for the future. They want to let go of the breath they’ve been holding for years, maybe decades — something they cannot do with uncertain status.

Healing from trauma takes place individually, interpersonally and societally. We can start where we are: Look around you, and in your own family history — when were your ancestors displaced and desperate for safety? How do you wish they were treated, and what skills do you have to help others now? Honor their memories by speaking out and voting for compassion and unity. Future generations are watching.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less