Daily Caller
Bureaucrats Breathed Life Into Biden’s Border Crisis With Mountains Of Taxpayer Cash

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Hopkins
President Donald Trump has shut off the funding spigot to Biden-era initiatives and charity organizations that quietly carved out “fast-track” pathways for migrants to enter the American homeland.
On his first day back in the White House, the Republican president signed an executive order that placed a funding freeze on development assistance to foreign countries and the involved nonprofit organizations, arguing that such funding needs to be better aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests. That order had a monumental impact on one major nonprofit, in particular, and also a migration initiative created by the previous administration.
Launched in 2023 by President Joe Biden, the Safe Mobility Initiative established numerous brick-and-mortar buildings across Latin America, known as Safe Mobility Offices (SMOs), that allowed asylum seekers to apply to enter the U.S. This $80 million program proved to be incredibly popular with migrants, with a House Judiciary report finding that more than a quarter million migrants were allowed to register for potential entry into the U.S. within the first 15 months of the initiative.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!
House Judiciary Republicans investigating the Safe Mobility Initiative in 2024 argued it was specifically designed to “fast-track” migrants into the U.S., providing them a new pathway into the country without having to add to the chaotic scenes taking place at the southern border. The program paid foreign national employees millions to help coach migrants on how to reach the interior of the U.S.
“Following a decision by the US government, the Safe Mobility Initiative is no longer active,” reads a notice on the front-page of the program’s website, which also notes that no new applications will be accepted and for those already referred for resettlement to standby for further updates.
The Biden administration opened the first SMOs in June 2023 and continued to expand with new locations throughout Central and South America. These processing centers, working in coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), allowed foreign nationals the opportunity to apply to migrate legally into the U.S.
However, critics of the initiative began pointing out that the Biden administration was simply creating an expedited run-around for more migrants to enter the U.S.
“Under President Biden, the State Department has announced its Safe Mobility Offices initiative, which allows illegal aliens to bypass the southwest border and, according to UNHCR, ‘avoid the risks associated with onward movement,’” House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan wrote to UNHCR in June 2024. “In other words, this new program fast-tracks aliens into the United States out of sight of the American people and without public transparency of the chaos at the border.”
A Mixed Migration Centre survey released in March 2024 showed 90% of SMO users wanted to reach the U.S. for economic opportunities — rather than fleeing persecution or war, which is the purpose of the refugee resettlement system.
The House Judiciary Committee later eviscerated the initiative in a report published in the waning days of the Biden administration, confirming that the program was spending millions of American taxpayer dollars to help thousands of migrants in Central and South America enter the U.S.
American taxpayers funded SMOs in 13 different cities across Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala and Costa Rica, according to the House report. More than 18,000 migrants from South and Central America departed for resettlement in the U.S. via the Safe Mobility Initiative, with roughly 67,000 total foreign nationals referred to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for possible resettlement into the country.
U.S. taxpayers altogether spent more than $80 million funding SMOs, with this funding being split between the UNHCR and the IOM, according to the Judiciary Committee. The committee additionally confirmed that SMO staffers would also counsel migrants previously deemed ineligible to enter the U.S. as refugees on other strategies to make it into the country.
“Only 14 percent of IOM employees devoted to the Safe Mobility Initiative are U.S. citizens, however, meaning that the Biden-Harris Administration uses U.S. taxpayer dollars to pay foreign national employees of the United Nations to counsel other foreign nationals on the best ways to enter the United States,” the report stated.
Biden launched the initiative in the middle of what the worst year on record for unlawful border encounters. His administration made other attempts to quell the sky-high levels of illegal immigration by creating alternate avenues for otherwise-inadmissible migrants to enter the U.S., such as the CHNV program and the dramatic expansion of the CBP One app.
The Trump administration also took an axe to the non-profits accused of fomenting the illegal immigration crisis. The president’s order freezing foreign assistance came to the chagrin of organizations like Catholic Charities USA, which have long been accused of enabling illegal immigration.
“Today we are announcing that we have stopped all grant funding that’s being abused by NGOs to facilitate illegal immigration into this country,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced in January. “So it’s amazing to me the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent by the federal government that has been sent to NGOs to facilitate this invasion of our country.”
“I think people are curious when we look at grants that are given out by federal agencies at how they’re utilized, and that evaluation needs to be done,” Noem added.
“We’re not spending another dime to help the destruction of this country.”
Catholic Charities USA and its affiliate organizations have been heavily involved in facilitating immigration and refugee resettlement into the U.S. over the years — with the help of the American taxpayer. From 2023-2024, the group and its affiliates received more than $5 million in federal grants, according to Catholic Culture.
Catholic Charities Southern Ohio, for example, partners with the State Department for Refugee Resettlement, with one of its main sources of revenue being government fees and grants. The group in January 2024 opened a facility providing legal advocacy and other immigration services in Springfield, Ohio, a town so inundated with Haitian migrants that local leaders begged the federal government for assistance.
Catholic Charities Archdiocese of San Antonio received millions in federal funding in 2024 to provide migrant services, largely through its Migrant Resource Center located near the southern border. The organization, however, was blasted by lawmakers in Washington, D.C., for allegedly using taxpayer money to cover the cost of airline tickets for migrants.
When asked by the Daily Caller if the president intended to permanently cut funding to organizations like Catholic Charities that have helped bring illegal migrants into the U.S., White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said she was “quite certain” Trump’s executive order did just that.
Catholic Charities USA President and CEO Kerry Alys Robinson begged the administration in a public statement to reconsider its funding freeze, claiming that its work provides essential services. The organization did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“For more than a century, the Catholic Charities network has worked with the government to care for poor and vulnerable people in every community in the U.S., and we continue to be eager to work with government to care for our neighbors in need,” Robinson wrote in January. “We strongly urge the administration to rethink this decision.”
Trump’s decision to freeze foreign assistance spending has put a stop to other seemingly-frivolous spending on migrant services. A Lebanese gender specialist was just about to launch a U.S.-funded program providing mental health services to LBGTQ Venezuelan youths living in Colombia, but was told the initiative was defunded just as she arrived in Bogota, according to The Associated Press.
Daily Caller
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.
A few conclusions are fairly clear:
First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.
Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.
Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”
Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.
The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.
How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?
In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.
So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.
However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.
And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”
Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”
The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.
The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either
The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?
Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.
Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?
These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.
The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.
“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.
Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.
Daily Caller
Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.
The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”
“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.
“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.
“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.
WATCH:
“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.
“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.
Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”
The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”
“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”
“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.
“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.
-
Alberta2 days agoCalgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoSports 50/50 Draws: Make Sure You Read The Small Print
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Offers Enormous Advantages for AI Data Centres
-
espionage2 days agoTrump says release the Epstein files
-
COVID-192 days agoNew report warns Ottawa’s ‘nudge’ unit erodes democracy and public trust
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoQuebec City faces lawsuit after cancelling Christian event over “controversial” artist
-
Alberta2 days agoNational Crisis Approaching Due To The Carney Government’s Centrally Planned Green Economy
-
Uncategorized17 hours agoCost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts


