The Dictatorship
I attended a friend’s citizenship ceremony. I was astonished at what it revealed.
On a breezy morning this summer, a dear friend of mine became an American. Alongside people from dozens of other countries including Yemen, Togo and Russia, he, a Pakistani who had lived in the States for decades, took the oath of citizenship. After the ceremony, a group of us took photos outside the Brooklyn courthouse, strolled through some quiet streets and took shots at a mostly empty bar at 11 in the morning. Between dark jokes about how we could no longer call ICE on our newly American friend if he annoyed us too much, we reflected on the surprisingly philosophical remarks from the judge overseeing the oath of allegiance ceremony.
That judge did more than instruct those in the ceremony to raise their right hand and recite a promise to support and defend the Constitution. He delivered a full-fledged sermon on multiculturalism and what it means to become an American. He told his rapt audience that they ought to hold onto their country of origin — its culture, its languages, its food — “close to your heart” and advised them not to “let go.”
At the bar, my friends and I wondered if the judge had meant to sound political.
He promised them that becoming an American citizen was not a forfeiture of their past, but was “adding something on top of it.” He counseled the new citizens to believe they were not second-class because they were naturalized: “You’re not less of a citizen than anyone else, and don’t let any tell you otherwise. If they do, you come to me,” he said. He gushed about his own Italian ancestry, and he shared his love for his adopted son from another country. Ultimately, he argued that naturalized citizens were full Americans who had a unique ability to enrich the republic with their background — and encouraged the group to pour all of themselves into their new nation.
I cried as the judge spoke. I cried because I’m a sucker for any spirited defense of multicultural democracy, something that resonates viscerally for me as the child of immigrants who has always felt my heritage was a gift. But I also cried because the idea the judge celebrated is in peril. My friend had anxiously awaited his citizenship confirmation as ICE was arresting people at citizenship appointments. He was moving toward becoming a naturalized citizen as the president was defaming immigrants as “poisoning the blood” of America, reducing legal immigration, attempting to deport legal immigrants for political speech and overseeing a mass deportation operation that employed racial profiling.
Things seem to be getting worse. This week, President Donald Trump abruptly canceled citizenship ceremonies and, using a disingenuous security argument to effectively discriminate based on nationalityplucked select people out of line for ceremonies based on their country of origin. Trump has said he would “absolutely” denaturalize people to the extent he’s able to.
At the bar, my friends and I wondered if the judge had meant to sound political. The subtext to his comments about how nobody should let themselves be pushed around after leaving the courtroom was that it could very well happen — not just by schoolyard bullies or oddball xenophobes, but the president of the country they had just become citizens of.
Did they believe they were as American as everybody else and should be accepted as such? Or were they afraid of being targeted by the president’s supporters — or even by the president himself?
Not so long ago, things were so much different. On an idyllic summer day 14 years ago, I watched another loved one take the oath of allegiance to become a citizen: my mother. On this occasion, the judge presiding over the ceremony was far more reserved and did not preach. But the event spoke for itself. I remember feeling immense pride at the swearing in, surrounded by people from what felt like every country in the world. I marveled at how all those people wanted to be here, a place where I had begun and become a person. And this country was run by people who seemed to want all these people from all over the world to be here, to begin their life anew. It sunk in for me how radically generative and beautiful it was to live in a nation defined by immigration. Yes, I cried.
This was the Obama era: a time of record-breaking mass deportations of undocumented immigrants and coldness toward Central American refugeesbut also a time of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, initiative, a welcoming attitude toward legal immigration and excitement over the possibilities of multiculturalism. The president himself was the son of a Kenyan immigrant to the U.S. More broadly, while President Barack Obama was no immigration dove, the federal government was operating according to a good faith application of rules and held no on-the-record racist positions on desirable nationalities. The oath ceremony felt orderly and secure, a final stop on a sturdy set of train tracks. My mother had for many years played by the rules, lived her American life and applied for citizenship. The application was approved. Each party had kept its word, and my mother and America were better off for it.
The Trump administration is laying siege to the idea that citizenship is a democratic pact.
The Trump administration is laying siege to the idea that citizenship is a democratic pact, and instead positing that it should be a function of ethnic heritage. Vice President JD Vance’s dog whistle at the Claremont Institute in California in July helped underscore it. He said that “identifying America just with agreeing with the principles, let’s say, of the Declaration of Independence — that’s a definition that is way over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time,” and spoke of people with ancestors who fought in the Civil War as having “a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong.”
Vance insinuated a hierarchy of citizenship in which the descendants of Southern white people who waged war against the federal government had an outsized claim to the nation, suggesting Americanness is tied more to bloodlines than fidelity to the republic.
Vance’s point that being an American is about more than just a nominal agreement with its overarching principles is correct. But it’s also a strawman. Immigrants don’t just barge into the U.S., memorize what it takes to pass the naturalization test (which most Americans would fail) and then vanish into autonomous ethnic enclaves. Every generation of immigrants in American history follows the same pattern: They become participants and contributors to the nation’s economy and society — assimilating into America (especially intergenerationally) while expanding its horizons.
My mother and my friend are natural examples of this dynamism. Since coming to the U.S., my mother has done work for nonprofits in education and the arts, held her ground as a fierce soccer mom, and thrown dinner parties featuring South Asian food that’s beloved by her American friends. She delights in watching ice-hockey brawls and loves matzo ball soup.
My friend plunged headlong into America by going to college in the Midwest and joining a fraternity. He still watches Pakistani cricket, but he’s grown fond of jazz and obsessed with the Knicks. He has worked tirelessly as a producer and director on incisive documentaries about American culture.
Both are bilingual and have large circles of friends that include people who were born in America and people who immigrated here.
Maybe the judge at my mother’s naturalization ceremony didn’t feel the need to preach a sermon because the idea of “E pluribus unum” — out of many, one — wasn’t under attack. Perhaps the judge at my friend’s ceremony felt the need to insist upon that idea because he knows it is.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. Sign up for his free politics newsletter by clicking the link at the top of this bio.
The Dictatorship
Iran negotiator or private investor? Raskin launches investigation into Jared Kushner.
House Judiciary Democrats are launching a new investigation into President Donald Trump’s son-in-law — and Iran ceasefire negotiator — Jared Kushner, citing his “glaring and incurable conflict of interest.”
In a letter obtained first by MS NOW, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., writes that Kushner’s dual roles as Trump administration peace envoy and leader of a private equity firm have “been haunting American foreign policy since President Trump returned to Washington in 2025,” with the Iran war only compounding concerns that Kushner’s financial work could distort his priorities.
“Your client Saudi Arabia,” Raskin writes, “wants to see a continuation and escalation of President Trump’s Iran war, but the American people have an interest in minimizing the loss of American lives and treasure in this conflict.”
“To whom do your professional obligations and fiduciary duties belong?” Raskin asks in the letter, which was sent to Kushner, his firm, and the State Department on Thursday.
Kushner, who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka, founded the investment firm Affinity Partners in 2021 after serving as a senior adviser during Trump’s first administration.
Affinity’s largest and earliest investor, according to The New York Timesis Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The fund invested roughly $2 billion after the first Trump White House ended. Sovereign wealth funds tied to other Gulf nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have also invested.
Affinity has earned a 25% rate of return since 2021, according to a person familiar with the firm’s internal dynamics.
Since Trump returned to the White House, Kushner has taken on the role of peace envoy, working on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas and, most recently, the U.S. and Iran. The latter two, critics note, are in the region that is the source of sizable investments in Kushner’s firm.
“You cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn of the Saudi monarchy at the same time,” Raskin writes in the letter. “You cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own.”
In a statement shared with MS NOW, Ian Brekke, chief legal officer for Affinity, said Kushner “has complied with all applicable laws and requirements and has always operated in the best interests of the United States.”
“Jared is not raising funds and has not done business in Gaza, Ukraine or Iran and has no intention to do so,” Brekke said.
In response to a March report in The New York Times that Kushner had taken recent steps to raise money for his firm from governments in the Middle East, Brekke wrote, “Affinity had early conversations with its anchor investor and does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government.”
And in a statement to MS NOW, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Kushner had “sacrificed time with his family and livelihood” to work on the Trump administration’s initiatives overseas. She called Raskin “an attention-seeking loser who has saved zero lives and hasn’t accomplished anything.”
As part of the new House Judiciary investigation that Democrats are unilaterally launching, Raskin is asking Kushner to hand over a trove of materials tied to his work for Affinity and with the government.
The documents Raskin wants include: records of his communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, and Israeli officials and their state-linked investment funds dating back to 2022; the financial records detailing all investors in his Affinity investment fund; records of meetings with investors dating back to July2024; and all communications relating to financial investments in Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and other areas where Kushner has played a role as a negotiator.
Raskin is also requesting Kushner’s communications with the White House and the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, dating back to July 2024 regarding his role in the new administration.
While Kushner is unlikely to play ball with Democrats — and as long as Republicans don’t side with Democrats, Raskin doesn’t have the unilateral ability to subpoena Kushner — the inquiry is a bit of a preview of the investigations Democrats will launch should their party win control of the House.
As the midterms approach, Democrats are pledging to make rooting out corruption in the Trump administration a central focus. And while Kushner could ignore Raskin now, that would be much more difficult next year if Democrats take back the committee gavels.
For Raskin, this is the latest step in a yearslong effort to review Kushner’s activities.
In 2023, while serving as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin wrote to Kushner questioning whether his business interests may have influenced his work during the first Trump administration.
In 2024, Raskin and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called on the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to review possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
The Dictatorship
House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House early Friday approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance programused by U.S. spy agencies in a post-midnight vote after Republicans revolted and refused President Donald Trump’s push for a longer extension.
GOP leaders rushed lawmakers back into session to late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.
First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.
Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.
“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.
But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.
At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.
U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.
Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security
Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.
Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.
Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.
A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”
“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”
The result of days of negotiations
Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.
Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.
Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.
But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.
With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.
“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”
Todd Lyons, the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is resigning from the agency later this spring, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to MS NOW.
He will remain in his role until May 31. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not immediately clear, and officials have not publicly identified his replacement.
“Director Lyons has been a great leader of ICE and key player in helping the Trump administration remove murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and gang members from American communities,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement.
“He jumpstarted an agency that had not been allowed to do its job for four years. Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer.”
Lyons, a longtime immigration enforcement official who assumed the acting directorship in 2025, has overseen ICE during a period of expanded deportation operations under President Donald Trump. His tenure has coincided with a sharp increase in enforcement tactics under the administration, including the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prettiby immigration officers in Minnesota in January.
ICE has cycled through multiple acting leaders in recent years and has lacked a Senate-confirmed director. Lyons’ departure comes at a pivotal moment for the agency as it navigates ongoing legal challenges and political divisions tied to the administration’s hardline immigration crackdown agenda. In recent months, Lyons has faced growing scrutiny, including a court order requiring him to appear before a federal judge over concerns that the agency failed to comply with directives related to detainees’ rights.
Earlier Thursday, Lyons testified before a House Appropriations subcommitteewhere he faced questions from lawmakers over ICE’s budget, enforcement priorities and compliance with court orders.
During the hearing, Lyons defended the agency’s recent surge in operations, arguing that increased resources were necessary to carry out its mission, while acknowledging ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny surrounding detainee treatment and due process protections.
Before assuming the top post, Lyons previously held senior roles within ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division, where he helped oversee deportation efforts nationwide.
Following the announcement of his resignation, White House border czar Tom Homan said Lyons “served selflessly as a highly respected and effective” as the acting ICE chief.
“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan said in a statement.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller praised Lyons as a “phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader.”
Didi Martinez is a freelance field producer for MS NOW.
Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.
- ‘We are not going back’: Iran war forces global energy shift
- Iran negotiator or private investor? Raskin launches investigation into Jared Kushner.
- House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan
- Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns
- Will Trump have appointed a majority of the Supreme Court by year’s end?
- House passes short-term spy powers extension in late-night vote after deal falls apart
- Republicans move forward on last-minute spy powers deal, teeing up late-night vote
- Acting ICE chief to exit agency: DHS secretary
- Popular weight loss medications linked to hidden side effects, study finds
- Trump claims Mamdani is ‘destroying New York’ with proposed second-home tax
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?