Antonio and his family have been living in a Tijuana shelter for months after fleeing violence in the Mexican state of Michoacan in 2020. After months of trying, they secured an appointment to seek asylum in the United States and will be some of the first to be processed after the lifting of Title 42, a pandemic-era policy.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Statue Of Liberty
Photo by Brandon Mowinkel on Unsplash
Almost as Good as It Gets?
Nov 15, 2025
In the classic film, Network, Howard Beale delivered one of the most remembered lines in movie history: “I’m mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore”. Many voters, from Virginia to California and Maine to Georgia, seemed to feel that way. Frustrated by chaos, corruption, and exhaustion, they turned out in record numbers to deliver sweeping victories for Democrats, winning most every significant contest on the ballot.
Virginia, Virginia, Virginia
Virginia has again shown itself as a bellwether of change. Abigail Spanberger won by the largest margin since Bob McDonnell’s 2009 victory, as Democrats swept all statewide races in an election with turnout higher than four years ago — a clear sign of Democratic energy.
Less noticed but equally consequential were Democrats’ massive gains in the House of Delegates, where they flipped 13 seats and will hold a 64–36 margin come January. Speaker of House Don Scott, arguably now the most powerful man in the state and the primary architect of the romp, exclaimed that this “is what a mandate looks like,” while cautioning that “the word of the day is restraint. We can’t overreach.”
Republicans, meanwhile, imploded. Neither Trump nor mainstream conservatives ever embraced Winsome-Sears, whose campaign was derided by a Trump ally as a “dumpster fire”—a label made literal when her campaign bus caught fire on the roadside. Late GOP money shifted to Jason Miyares, but even that could not save him. Trump supporters unloaded after her loss. Chris LaCivita, longtime Virginia GOP strategist and Trump’s 2024 campaign manager, wrote: “A Bad candidate and Bad campaign have consequences — the Virginia Governor’s race is example number 1.”

Winsome-Sears faced incredible headwinds. Trump is even more toxic in Virginia today than he was in 2017, when Ralph Northam won the governorship by 9 points and Democrats gained 15 seats in the House of Delegates. And with this year’s Republican candidates carrying major weaknesses, it was a perfect storm for Democrats. You could see this in the turnout numbers. In Republican-leaning districts, turnout was down, while the opposite was true in Democratic areas. Fairfax alone produced a surplus of 205,000 votes, 100,000 more than McAuliffe’s total of four years ago. Spanberger’s margin remained consistent from the beginning until the very end, when the undecided vote broke decisively for the next governor.
Spanberger’s margin, coupled with the national environment, was key to the victories of her running mates, Ghazala Hashmi and Jay Jones. Jones was successful in linking Miyares to Trump, and the outgoing AG’s failure to fight for universities like UVA and George Mason left him further exposed to criticism. Despite the last-minute publication of Jones’s inappropriate text messages from several years ago, he still won more votes than Governor Youngkin did in 2021 (1.75 million to 1.66 million) and his margin of victory was much larger than the outgoing governor (200,000 vs. 64,000). Youngkin’s 2021 victory now appears to be more of an anomaly than it did at the time.
Looking to the future, Democratic performance improved across the state. Whether this portends a reversal of the party’s lackluster results in rural areas is not clear, but this year’s results provides some optimism.
New Jersey, New York, and Turnout
Trump was a factor in most every key race. In the Commonwealth, Trump’s cuts in federal employment was felt more personally. But the president’s “termination” of the Gateway Project in New Jersey and New York, the largest infrastructure and jobs project in the nation, because they were “democratic initiatives” became an organizing tool for both newly-elected Governor Mikie Sherrill and incoming Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Sherill’s race was supposed to be close; it was not. Democrats also picked up seats in the Jersey state assembly, and may have a super majority when all votes are counted.
In New York, Mayor-elect Mamdani harnessed the affordability crisis to mobilize young voters and ran an insurgent campaign against entrenched wealth — including Donald Trump himself. Republicans will likely try to make him the face of the Democratic Party, but last night’s results show each electorate is unique, and victory depends on tailoring messages to local coalitions and concerns.
In New Jersey, about 54% of registered voters cast a ballot, the highest turnout in a non-presidential election since 1998, dramatically up from the 40% who voted in the last governor’s contest. New York City, turnout was higher than any year since 1969.
Voting for Ideas and Democracy
In California and Maine, where no statewide candidates were on the ballot, voters instead turned out for ideas! In the Golden state, an overwhelming majority approved a constitutional amendment empowering the legislature to redraw congressional maps—an explicit rebuke to Texas’s recent partisan gerrymander designed to rig the midterms. In Maine, voters soundly rejected a voter-suppression initiative that would have required photo identification at the polls, defeating it by a commanding 64–36% margin.
Democrats in Pennsylvania notched 3 critical victories to retain seats on the state supreme court at a time when voting rights and democratic protections increasingly depend on state-level decisions.
Change even reached deep-red states. In Georgia, Democrats scored major upsets by unseating two Republican members of the Public Service Commission, the office that determines utilities rates and influences state climate policy. The victors will be the state’s first Democratic commissioners since 2007. And in Mississippi, two special-election victories ended the GOP’s supermajority in the state Senate.
Even in local areas, the blue tide swept Democrats into power. In Onondaga County, New York, a traditionally red jurisdiction surrounding Syracuse, Democrats won every contested seat for the local legislature, giving them the majority for the first in approximately 50 years. Just down the road in Oswego County, New York, Democrats picked up five Republican seats in the county legislature.
When Trump was elected, many predicted that there would be an electoral backlash. It has arrived. But the real test lies ahead: whether the energy of this moment can be sustained through the 2026 midterms and beyond.
The election results remind us that democracy still works when people believe in it, organize for it, and show up to defend it. The message from this election is clear—Americans still vote for ideas, fairness, and for the future.
A version of Almost as Good as It Gets? was originally published on the Substack "Fights of Our Lives" and is republished with permission.
David J. Toscano is an attorney in Charlottesville, Virginia, and a former Mayor. He served fourteen years in Virginia’s House of Delegates, including seven as the Democratic Leader.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

A personal journey through Alabama reveals a family's buried racist past, confronting slavery, lynching, and civil-rights history while seeking truth, healing, and accountability.
Getty Images, Kirkikis
Facing the Past, and Confronting Generations of Racism in Alabama
Nov 14, 2025
I come from a long line of racists.
Tracing my ancestry back to the early nineteenth century, I discovered that my great-great-great-grandfather emigrated from Ireland and then drifted south, eventually settling in Dallas County, Alabama. Daniel Brislin called Selma home.
He was a cabinet maker, and a decent one at that. The Selma Times Journal reported that he was also exceptionally generous: “The respect and esteem in which he was held by the whole town, and especially the poor, whose staunch friend he was, was attested at his death.” A George Bailey-like figure, Brislin (our surname would morph over time into “Breslin”) was known to forgive payment on a table or a chest of drawers he crafted for a fellow Sel-towner. He regularly fashioned furniture on the commitment of a handshake, a promise, an IOU. That’s what you did in Alabama, I’m sure he would say. You trusted your neighbor.
Unless that neighbor had a different skin color.
Now, there is no historical evidence that my great-great-great-grandfather was an enslaver. And there is no suggestion that he treated the growing Black population of Selma with conspicuous disdain. But he was friendly with Edmund Pettus, the infamous U.S. Senator and white supremacist who fought for the Confederacy and who wore the distinctive costume of the Grand Dragon, the state’s ranking Ku Klux Klan officer. They walked in the same circles; they worshipped in the same churches; their children went to the same schools. To be sure, the two enjoyed the privileges of whiteness in an antebellum Alabama. No one should doubt that my forebear shared much in common with the famous bridge’s namesake.
How do I make sense of this past, this blemish on my family name, this dent to my identity? Daniel Brislin bore me, after all. Not literally; there were many Brislins and Breslins between him and me. But it seems the prejudice of my earliest forefathers only diluted over time. It never fully disappeared.
To start, I realized I could not make much sense of anything in the comfortable confines of my home. Upstate New York has its demons, but it does not carry the heavy burden of American slavery. Or at least not outwardly.
So I recently accompanied my adult daughter on a journey to our ancestral homeland. She’s been to Alabama before—we’re enormous Crimson Tide football fans—but never exactly on a civil rights pilgrimage. Specifically, I wanted to explore Montgomery’s unique legacy in the nation’s enduring struggle for racial equality. I’ve been to Selma and I’ve walked the Edmund Pettus Bridge. I’ve stood in front of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. I’ve even traveled to Scottsboro. But I had never been to Montgomery. I felt I needed to go.
The city, of course, is the epicenter of the civil rights movement. The state’s house of government, Montgomery, was also the first capital of the Confederate States of America. It thus has profound symbolic importance. It was the final destination of the Voting Rights Marches organized by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and others. It boasts more than its fair (or should I say “fare”) share of historical heroes—none grander than Rosa Parks, who famously refused to surrender her seat to a white man on a Montgomery city bus. Americans forget that Dr. King cut his pastorate teeth at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church across the street from the State Capitol and just around the corner from what was the first Confederate White House. It was in Dr. King’s place of worship that so much of the civil rights strategy was birthed.
Today, the Legacy Sites are the heart of Montgomery’s racial retelling. Three spaces in all, the Legacy Sites are intended to “invite visitors to reckon with [America’s] history of racial injustice in places where that history was lived.”
The Legacy Museum is a powerful and interactive object space that transports visitors from the slave ships—where more than 12 million Africans experienced the brutal conditions of the trans-Atlantic passage and more that 2 million died on the voyage (the mental image of a cemetery with several million souls buried at the bottom of the sea is hard to forget)—through Reconstruction, forced segregation, Jim Crow, and finally mass incarceration.
Freedom Monument and Legacy Park include a boat ride on the Alabama River, a major waterway supporting the slave trade.
Both are impressive. But it was at the National Memorial for Peace and Justice that my daughter and I began to understand the significance of our family’s legacy. The six-acre outdoor space is both commemoration and exhibition, deeply somber and penetratingly artistic. It tells the story of America’s racial terror lynchings. Over 4400 Black men and women were murdered because of their skin tone, tied to trees and posts and bridges, and left to hang limp and exposed. Each victim of these racial executions has their name inscribed on one of the corten steel blocks that, together, form an indelible sight. The memorial is beautiful and despairing in equal measure.
The exhibition is also allegorical. Visitors navigate the space by walking under blocks that are attached to rods by noose-like connectors, unsubtly suggesting that we are all spectators and participants in a real-life lynching. The blocks themselves resemble both coffins and the human form. The durability of the steel stands in contrast to the frailty of the deceased. The indifference of the executioner is powerfully vanquished by the permanence of the blocks themselves.
Lynchings were a display of racial power – THE most jarring and vicious show of racial control invented by man. The snapping of the neck or the suffocation that occurred were meant to convey dominion. Lifeless bodies were left for all to see. Nineteen of these gruesome demonstrations were staged in Dallas County during the Jim Crow era, the second-highest number in the entire state. Selma claims its share of them.
Deep down, I know that my great-great-great-grandfather must have been part of that terror. In a sense, then, that terror now courses through my veins. And my daughter’s. Aside from facing our past through education, dialogue, and raised awareness, I can’t shield us from the cruelty we inherited.
They say that silence is acquiescence. At best, Daniel Brislin stayed mum while Black persons in Selma and throughout the South were subjected to unimaginable cruelty, torn from their families, treated with scorn and reprisal, lynched for the most inconsequential “transgressions,” and taught that the white patriarchy considered them morally inferior. My condemnation of his silence is easy, trite, almost. And yet even in this vastly polarized moment, I think we can all agree that any form of racial dominion is wicked. It is now; it was then. I journey on.
Beau Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair in Government at Skidmore College.
Keep ReadingShow less

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.
Getty Images, Stocktrek Images
Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act
Nov 14, 2025
Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?
Context: history
Throughout the 19th century, the U.S. military engaged in violent conflicts with Native Americans, many of them armed uprisings, as white people settled native land. On December 29, 1890, a large party from the Lakota tribe made camp by a South Dakota creek called Wounded Knee. Hundreds of Army soldiers surrounded the group, attempting to disarm them.
A shot rang out. Though the exact circumstances are murky, it’s believed a deaf Lakota man named Black Coyote refused to surrender his weapon, which went off accidentally. A violent melee ensued – but since most of the Lakota had surrendered their weapons by that point, they were left largely defenseless. While at least 25 U.S. soldiers died during the battle, hundreds of Lakota people died, including women and children.
In the aftermath, 20 U.S. soldiers were bestowed the Medal of Honor, the nation’s top military prize.
Context: today
In July 2024, President Joe Biden’s Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced a commission to review those medals, with their recommendations and report due to him by that October. However, this report was never publicly released.
Austin ultimately took no action on the medals during his time in office – neither rescinding them as many predicted he would, nor affirmatively maintaining them. As a result, the medals remain intact.
In September 2025, President Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revealed the panel had voted nearly a year prior to recommend upholding the medals.
While the actual report has still not been publicly released, one of the commission’s five members told South Dakota Searchlight that the recommendation vote was 3-2. Reportedly, Defense Department members provided the three votes to maintain the medals, while members of the Interior Department (which helps manage tribal lands) provided the two votes to rescind.
Hegseth then announced he accepted the panel’s recommendations and affirmatively kept the medals intact. He declared his decision “final,” meaning the medals would never be rescinded by him… but Congress still could.
What the legislation does
The Remove the Stain Act would posthumously rescind the Medal of Honor for any Wounded Knee participant who previously received the award.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced the Senate version on May 22, then Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-HI2) introduced the House version a day later on May 23. That was several months before Hegseth’s announcement, but in anticipation of its possibility.
Is this even allowed?
Indeed, hundreds of Medals of Honor have been rescinded before.
The most famous case might be Mary Edwards Walker, the only woman ever awarded the Medal of Honor. President Andrew Johnson bestowed the prize upon her in 1865 for saving dozens of soldiers’ lives while working at a Civil War hospital. But in 1917, Congress retroactively changed the criteria, saying medals could only go to those who’d served in combat.
Walker, still alive in her 80s, saw her prize officially revoked but refused to return her actual physical medal. President Jimmy Carter posthumously reinstated her award in 1977.
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the 1890 event was an unjustified butchery.
“The massacre of hundreds of unarmed Lakota men, women, and children at Wounded Knee was a crime against humanity. Honoring the perpetrators with the Medal of Honor adds insult to that deep wound,” Rep. Tokuda said in a press release. “[The bill would] revoke medals that should never have been given, because healing begins with honesty — and the Lakota people deserve nothing less.”
"We cannot be a country that celebrates and rewards horrifying acts of violence against native people," Sen. Warren said in a separate press release. "Congress must recognize how shameful this massacre was and take an important step toward justice for the Lakota people."
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the soldiers in 1890 were under attack and defended themselves valiantly, with 25 of them losing their lives.
Sec. Austin “was more interested in being politically correct than historically correct,” Sec. Hegseth said in a social media video announcing his decision, which earned 29+ million views on X/Twitter. “[Austin] chose not to make a final decision. Such careless inaction has allowed for their distinguished recognition to remain in limbo, until now.”
“Under my direction, we’re making it clear without hesitation that the soldiers… will keep their medals. And we’re making it clear that they deserve those medals,” Hegseth continued. “Their place in our nation’s history is no longer up for debate. We salute their memory, we honor their service, and we will never forget what they did.”
Odds of passage
The Senate version has attracted seven cosponsors, all Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. The House version has attracted eight Democratic cosponsors. Either version awaits a potential vote in their respective chamber’s Armed Services Committee, both controlled by Republicans.
Several prior versions introduced starting in 2019 never received a committee vote, not even when Democrats controlled one or both chambers of Congress.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: The Charlie Kirk Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Department of War Restoration Act
Keep ReadingShow less

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.
(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”
Nov 14, 2025
On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”
Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.
Instead, I write today to highlight what I believe is an imminent human rights crisis that should influence Secretary Noem’s determination whether Venezuela is a safe place to send 600,000 human beings. On one hand, it is well known around the globe that Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro is a brutal dictator bent on absolute power at all costs. On the other hand, based on allegations that Maduro is facilitating narcotics trafficking, President Trump is aggressively increasing pressure on the Maduro regime, possibly seeking regime change (Maduro’s opposition leader, María Corina Machado, a recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has been openly lobbying for President Trump’s intervention). Caught between these two opposing perilous forces, 600,000 Venezuelans fled to the U.S. to escape Maduro and the disastrous conditions he has created for all Venezuelans.
How Did We Get Here?
In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security determined that Venezuela was experiencing “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevented Venezuelans in the U.S. from returning safely. This determination triggered DHS to offer Temporary Protected Status to eligible Venezuelans in the U.S. This 2021 determination found that the circumstances in Venezuela were dire, in large part, due to former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s campaign to upset Venezuela’s democratic processes and consolidate the power of the government in himself and his trusted inner circle. The determination cited Maduro’s political machinations, crimes against humanity, and his regime’s disastrous initiatives that collapsed the economy, the health care system, the food distribution system, and public utilities. That the country with the largest oil reserves in the world should find itself in these dire straits is a testament to Maduro’s myopia, placing himself first with zero concern for the 32 million people that live in Venezuela.
Even before Maduro’s 2018 power-grab, his regime was repeatedly and credibly accused of crimes against humanity (see, e.g., the 2014 Report by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission into alleged abuses). The brutality of the Maduro regime has only intensified as Maduro continues his assumption of absolute political power. A 2024 investigation by the U.N. Human Rights Council found credible evidence to support allegations of Maduro’s continued crimes against humanity, such as torture (including beatings, suffocations, electrical shocks, and sexual violence against women and children), violent and deadly repression of pro-democracy demonstrations, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and disappearances. While the list goes on, the summary is brief: Maduro will do anything to stay in power.
U.S. Pressure Campaign
President Trump’s Administration would like to see Maduro deposed. Since the beginning of this year, the U.S. has built up its military presence in the region. In January, the U.S. military had relatively few people, planes, or ships near Venezuela. Today, the U.S. has stationed 10% of the Navy’s actively deployed fleet in nearby waters, including the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford—the Navy’s largest aircraft carrier —and has deployed thousands of Marines as well.
In August of this year, Attorney General Bondi authorized a reward of $50,000,000 for facilitating the arrest of Maduro. Recently, it has been widely reported that U.S. officials attempted to leverage that reward to encourage Maduro’s pilot to divert a routine flight into a jurisdiction where the U.S. could extradite him. On October 16, President Trump publicly acknowledged that he authorized the C.I.A. to engage in operations within Venezuela. Ten days later, Maduro announced that he had captured individuals he believes are connected with the CIA in a plot to incite and justify armed hostilities between Venezuela and the U.S.
Each day brings more reports of the U.S. Armed Forces destroying vessels with alleged ties to Venezuelan drug trafficking. 64 individuals have been killed as of this writing. Detailed information on the attacks is not available. While it’s clear not all deceased are Venezuelans, they have been the explicit targets of attacks for which the Department of War has made country of origin information publicly available.
A Recipe for Human Rights Abuses
In light of President Trump’s intensifying pressure on Maduro and Maduro believing that he has already discovered two U.S.-backed attempts to oust him from power, how will Maduro now treat the 600,000 Venezuelans arriving from years in the U.S.?
It’s said that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. Unfortunately, dictators throughout history and around the globe follow the same cursed limerick - when their power is challenged, they brutally reassert it. If history is any guide, a mass torturer viewing himself in a struggle for survival with forces both within his country (the pro-democracy movement led by María Corina Machado) and from outside (President Trump’s increasingly aggressive display of power) will view any new arrivals as potential provocateurs, particularly when those arrivals return from a country that is openly challenging the mass torturer’s power. Given Maduro’s track record of human rights violations and torture, the probability is extremely high that many former TPS recipients will be detained in overcrowded prisons. At the same time, the Maduro regime interrogates them, likely using its violent prior practices.
Do we really have the stomach to send 600,000 humans into the “mouth of the shark,” as Warsan Shire powerfully described escaping brutality in her poem “Home?” How much torture is OK? A practical solution is extremely simple: delay DHS enforcement of non-violent Venezuelans with current TPS status as of November 6. With the stroke of a pen, Secretary Noem can prevent an imminent human rights crisis while still allowing the removal of violent criminal immigrants, whom most Americans agree should be the target of ICE action. Delayed enforcement of the end of TPS for Venezuelans has little cost or risk to the U.S. Prematurely sending those Venezuelans risks an eternal miasma of blood on our hands.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Secretary Noem’s power to end TPS; the question is whether she has the judgment to stay her hand.
Jordan Martell has nearly 20 years of experience practicing law, primarily as in-house counsel for financial services firms. His passion is pro bono legal representation, where he spends most of his volunteer time working with immigrants.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















