
The Supreme Court just put Venezuelan lives at risk — Congress must act
This makes the bipartisan bill introduced last week by Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) all the more urgent. Their proposal to redesignate protected status for Venezuela isn't just a humane gesture — it is a lifeline, and a much-needed corrective to a policy shift that threatens to dismantle the protections that hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have relied on for years.
Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans was originally granted during the Biden administration in recognition of the dire circumstances they were fleeing. But the return of President Trump has brought a hardline stance. Hundreds of Venezuelans have been deported in recent months, many without due process. Most have no criminal records, no ties to gangs, and no realistic pathway to safety. Deportation, for many, is a sentence to further trauma, persecution, or even death.
It's worth asking why these protections were granted in the first place. Venezuelans are not merely fleeing poverty or economic collapse. They are fleeing a dictatorship.
Under Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan state has systematically dismantled every democratic institution, including free elections, independent courts, and press freedom. Much of the political opposition has been jailed or exiled. In the 2024 election — only the latest example of this — the regime stalled the vote, manipulated the process, and has yet to publish credible results. The consensus belief worldwide is that the opposition candidate won but that the result was fabricated to the contrary.
Yet even after two decades of authoritarianism and the largest refugee crisis in the hemisphere, some voices continue to claim that U.S. sanctions — not the regime — are the primary cause of the exodus. This narrative, often backed by questionable empirical methods, is not only misleading; it's dangerous.
Reducing Venezuela's crisis to mere economics erases the lived reality of millions. It provides cover for those who argue that Temporary Protected Status should be revoked because this is just another wave of economic migrants. Worse, it lends credence to a damaging and false narrative that Venezuelans are criminals — people fleeing poverty who then commit crimes in the U.S. — rather than refugees escaping a repressive regime, seeking dignity and safety. This mischaracterization is not only inaccurate but also undermines U.S. moral leadership.
In recent research I conducted, we tested the supposed link between sanctions and migration by examining whether fluctuations in Venezuela's oil revenues — a proxy for sanctions pressure — predicted migration flows. What we found was striking: more Venezuelans fled not when oil revenues fell, but when they rose. In other words, when the regime had more money to entrench itself and expand repression, hopelessness deepened — and more people fled. Even the most conservative reading of the data finds no evidence that sanctions caused the exodus.
And yet, critics — some of whom inadvertently echo the regime's own talking points — continue to argue that the crisis is merely economic. They're wrong. And by repeating that myth, they are helping justify the very policy shifts now putting lives at risk.
Maduro didn't just bankrupt Venezuela. He stole its future. He took not only the people's money, but their freedom.
Venezuelans in the United States are not economic migrants — they are refugees from a brutal dictatorship. Temporary Protected Status is not charity. It is the bare minimum a country that claims to be a beacon of liberty should offer to those fleeing persecution.
Congress has the chance — and now, the responsibility — to act.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cornyn calls for special counsel investigation into Obama's handling of 2016 Russia probe
Sen. John Cornyn on Thursday called for a special counsel investigation into former President Barack Obama and officials in his administration over their handling of the 2016 investigation into Russian election interference. Cornyn, R-Texas, has taken heat from the right over the years for his steadfast assertion that Russia did attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. He reasserted that belief Thursday while simultaneously calling for the Justice Department to investigate Obama — whom Trump recently accused of treason without evidence. The Russia episode became central to Trump's supporters' distrust of the government officials they believe are working against the president. Cornyn's call for a DOJ special counsel appointment lends credence to that longstanding sentiment on the right as he tries to fend off a high-profile primary challenge from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has claimed the MAGA mantle and questioned Cornyn's loyalty to Trump. Cornyn said he has not discussed his suggestion that DOJ appoint a special counsel with Trump. NBC News reported Thursday that Trump does not support the special counsel request and believes the DOJ can handle the investigation without one. Amid an uproar in the GOP base over Trump's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released documents that she claims prove Obama politicized intelligence reports that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in favor of Trump. The published documents show that Obama's team wanted to quickly assess the extent to which Russia influenced the election, but they do not appear to contain any smoking guns pointing to criminal behavior. Cornyn, a longtime senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was part of that panel's 2020 bipartisan investigation into the 2016 Russian interference episode, which served as a political lightning rod throughout Trump's first term. The probe concluded that Russia posed a serious threat in its effort to interfere in the 2016 election to benefit Trump. While the report did not definitively conclude whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, it provided evidence of contact between Russian agents and Trump advisers. Cornyn stood by the report's finding that Russia attempted to interfere in the election while insisting there was no evidence that Trump worked to support those efforts. 'I think there's just a lot of confusion,' he said in a brief interview. 'There's no question the Russians tried to do what the Russians always tried to do. But there's no evidence of collusion.' That was Cornyn's belief upon the report's release five years ago. He and other Republicans on the intelligence committee said at the time that the panel found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government as part of an addendum to the report. Cornyn said his call for a special counsel appointment is intended to discover the extent to which Obama and his staff manipulated intelligence, as Gabbard has asserted, to achieve their desired political outcome. 'There is evidence that the Obama administration essentially started a witch hunt against President Trump, which fell under the heading of the Russian hoax investigation,' Cornyn said. The documentation Gabbard produced for that theory — a 2017 House Republican report — argues that the intelligence community relied on poor analysis to conclude that the Kremlin preferred Trump to win the election. Gabbard said this was done at the behest of Obama and his administration officials as part of a 'treasonous conspiracy' against Trump. But numerous other investigatory reports — including the Senate one that Cornyn was a part of — concluded that a Trump victory was Putin's desired outcome in meddling. Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush said in a statement to numerous outlets that the Senate report supported the conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election, and that Gabbard had not put forward any evidence disputing that. Texas' other senator, Ted Cruz, called for a DOJ investigation on Fox News Wednesday, calling Gabbard's release 'a very important new trove of information.' Gabbard cited a Dec. 9, 2016 meeting between Obama and senior intelligence officials regarding Russia as evidence of manufactured intelligence. Cruz, in a reference to Pearl Harbor, said that date will 'live in infamy.' The lineup for The Texas Tribune Festival continues to grow! Be there when all-star leaders, innovators and newsmakers take the stage in downtown Austin, Nov. 13–15. The newest additions include comedian, actor and writer John Mulaney; Dallas mayor Eric Johnson; U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota; New York Media Editor-at-Large Kara Swisher; and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.


Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Rep. Ralph Norman, among House's most conservative, set to enter South Carolina governor's race
CHAPIN, S.C. — Rep. Ralph Norman, among the most conservative Republicans in the U.S. House, is entering South Carolina's 2026 governor's race. The wealthy real estate developer and longtime ally of former Gov. Nikki Haley is expected to file his candidacy paperwork with state officials on Friday, his campaign told The Associated Press. Norman has long been mulling a campaign for the state's highest office. But unlike several of his fellow candidates, he's not expected to seek the endorsement of the Republican whose backing in South Carolina GOP politics matters most: President Donald Trump . Norman, 72, joins several other announced candidates, including Attorney General Alan Wilson and Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette , in the race for next June's GOP primary, and Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina's 1st District is soon expected to announce her campaign. All three have touted their ties to Trump, who has maintained popularity in the state since his 2016 primary win there helped cement his status as the GOP presidential nominee. Representing South Carolina's 5th District, Norman stridently backed Trump during his first term, voting against both House impeachments of the president. During the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters , he urged the then-president to declare 'Marshall Law' in a text to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows — misstating the term martial law even as he called for upending the peaceful transfer of power . But in the 2024 presidential campaign, Norman was one of only two House members nationwide to endorse Haley's candidacy. The former South Carolina governor, who served as Trump's United Nations ambassador, was his last primary challenger to depart the race, and Norman frequently appeared with her along the campaign trail. Both elected to the state House in 2004, Norman and Haley became legislative allies, and Norman was among few elected officials who backed Haley's insurgent, and ultimately successful, 2010 gubernatorial bid. In the 2024 presidential campaign, Norman in part argued that Haley could serve two full terms, while Trump could only go on to serve one. Norman has frequently operated outside the mainstream even among his home state's GOP circles. In 2018, as Gov. Henry McMaster — with Trump's backing — faced several primary challengers as he sought his first full term in office after succeeding Haley as governor, Norman endorsed Catherine Templeton , an attorney who had served Haley's gubernatorial administration in several capacities. Norman has long been a member of the House Freedom Caucus, comprised of the chamber's most conservative members. According to the deficit hawk has traditionally ranked as the state's most conservative U.S. House member and among the top most conservative members nationwide, based on his legislative activity. He has been in the U.S. House since winning a 2017 special election to replace Mick Mulvaney, whom Trump appointed to lead the Office of Management and Budget. In 2018, South Carolina Democrats called for felony charges after Norman pulled out his own loaded handgun during a meeting with constituents to make a point about gun safety. Attorney General Alan Wilson — who is also seeking next year's GOP gubernatorial nomination — declined to press charges. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Norman, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky were fined $500 apiece for not wearing face coverings on the House floor, which was a requirement at the time. They sued Democratic then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, subsequently losing an appeal over the incident. ___ Kinnard can be reached at .


Fast Company
21 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Here's why Trump's proposed 401k executive order may be very bad news for your retirement
BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 7:11 Amidst the other recent headlines about his signature, you may have missed the news that Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order in the coming days that will allow defined-contribution plans like your 401k to include private market investments. If you're not the sort of person who views a mutual fund prospectus as light beach reading, this may sound like the kind of boring story that only your crypto-obsessed brother-in-law might care about. But this is serious business that could have repercussions on your retirement —especially if you're not paying attention. This proposed policy could be sending us down the same bumpy road that knocked the tires off of company-sponsored pension plans, dramatically increasing retirement insecurity for most American workers. Here's what you need to know. What's in the executive order? The specific details of the forthcoming executive order (EO) remain hazy. But most experts agree that the president will probably use the EO as an opportunity to formalize the 2020 Pantheon Ventures/Partners Group opinion letter from the Department of Labor. This letter, issued during Trump's first administration, suggests that private equity investment options could be included in defined-benefit plans (i.e., 401k and 403b plans and the like) as part of a target-dated fund or other managed fund. The letter also emphasizes that plan participants should not be able to directly access private equity investments. It's likely this letter may serve as a blueprint for the EO that crosses Trump's desk in the near future. What's private equity? Private equity is an investment in a privately traded company by an accredited investor or group of investors who take on a controlling interest in the organization. Though typically lucrative, private equity investing is often characterized by a long time horizon and a lack of liquidity. Private equity firms often charge high fees and expenses, and they may not disclose conflicts of interest. Let's look at these specific characteristics: Private trading Private equity is an investment class that is not available to the general public. This is unlike shares in publicly traded companies that anyone can purchase on the open market. Accredited investors An individual may be considered an accredited investor if they have earned $200,000 (or $300,000 with a spouse) for each of the past two years, or if they have a net worth of over $1 million excluding their primary residence. This means you're only allowed to invest in private equity if you can be relatively sure you won't be completely wiped out if you make a single bad investment. Controlling interest Typically, private equity investors take a controlling interest in the company and work to actively manage the business in order to increase its value. Illiquidity Private equity investment requires a long time horizon and most private equity funds will impose limits on when an investor can withdraw their funds. These limits will often last years. Fee structure Private equity funds come with fees and expenses that can be confusing, opaque, or just plain undisclosed. Conflicts of interest Private equity firms can and do have interests that conflict with those of their investors and the funds they manage. Though the SEC has proposed stronger rules for Private Fund advisers, and the commission does enforce what it can, investors must remain vigilant for the possibility of conflicts of interest. So what's the problem with private equity? There are some very good reasons why defined-benefit plans have always been closed to private equity. At its best, private equity is an effective tool that can help companies restructure and position themselves for future growth. This is what Dell did in 2013. But too often, private equity functions more like the 'Bust Out' episode of The Sopranos, where Tony drives his friend Davey's sporting goods store into bankruptcy by maxing out debt to purchase inventory the mobsters peddle for a profit. Sears and Toys 'R' Us are two examples of companies that didn't survive their private equity adventures. Those two bankruptcies eliminated 70,000 jobs, and company pension plans were eventually frozen or terminated. Why add private equity to 401k plans? There are $12.2 trillion worth of assets in U.S. defined contribution retirement plans. Private equity would appreciate getting a foothold in an investment sector that has traditionally been cut off from non-accredited investors. Proponents of the idea claim that allowing 401k investors to include private equity in their defined contribution plans will give them the opportunity to enjoy the higher returns that are typically restricted to accredited investors. But detractors worry that private equity is too risky and illiquid an investment class to have in a workplace retirement plan—which is where an employee would take a hardship withdrawal during a tough economic time. Critics like Elizabeth Warren have called private equity predatory and demanded stronger regulations. Why not just ignore it? If investing in private equity isn't your cup of tea, it may seem reasonable to simply put the matter out of your mind. You just won't invest in any of the private equity target-dated funds and your 401k will continue chugging along. The only issue with this plan is the fact that opening the door to private equity in our defined contribution plans will also make the employers sponsoring those plans more vulnerable. Under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), employers have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the investment options in your 401k are prudent and that any fees are not onerous. Plan sponsors have traditionally been leery of private equity in 401k retirement plans because of their illiquidity, complexity, opacity, and high fees, which leaves them open to ERISA lawsuits. Considering the fact that ERISA lawsuits against excessive 401k fees have risen to a near record high in the past year, employers have good reason to be worried. Yes, this does mean that everything is working as planned. Employers are supposed to take fiduciary responsibility for their employees' retirement plans, and when they don't, the workers can file ERISA lawsuits against them–and win. So far, so good. But the creation of ERISA 50 years ago, including the much-vaunted litigation portion of the law, may have contributed to the decline of pension plans. If it ain't broke . . . Placing even more complex fiduciary responsibility on the shoulders of employers could have similar unintended consequences that we can't yet see. Average 401k savings rates and balances have recently been at record highs. As pensions have declined, and more Americans are feeling nervous about the future of Social Security, do we really want to open up defined contribution retirement plans to a new class of under-regulated, risky investments? The average retirement investor simply has no need of private equity in their 401k. The super-early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is this Friday, July 25, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR The daughter of a financial planner, Emily Guy Birken never stood a chance: Try as she might to avoid her destiny (undergraduate degree in English with a focus on creative writing at Kenyon, MEd from The Ohio State University, teaching, motherhood), her innate fascination with money turned her into one of the most compelling and relatable writers on personal finance.. Based in Milwaukee and a regular guest on Wisconsin Public Radio, she has written for The Washington Post, USA Today, and many other publications and websites. In her "What to Expect When You're Investing" series for Fast Company, she has offered tips on getting your kids through college without going broke as well as advice on what to do if you run out of money in retirement. Whether explicating the hidden money lessons in the movie Groundhog Day or explaining why "spaving" is probably not a wise financial strategy for most of us, Emily offers data-driven insights with heaping portions of common sense and humor. More