How Bari Weiss's Free Press laundered MAGA talking points about refugees
As Weiss rebuilds CBS News and 60 Minutes in her own image, her flagship publication continues to whitewash some of Trump's cruelest policies
Bari Weiss continues to take a hatchet to CBS News. This week she fired longtime journalist and 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley after he angrily confronted her handpicked new editor for the program. Weiss also recently fired at least three other correspondents and producers. One of those was Sharyn Alfonsi, whose report on the grotesque human rights abuses at CECOT – the Salvadoran torture prison to which the Trump administration sent hundreds of Venzuelan migrants – was infamously held up by Weiss last year. The man Pelley confronted was Nick Bilton, a tech columnist with no broadcast experience whom Weiss appointed to take over the show.
Weiss was handed control of CBS by inheritance billionaire David Ellison, son of Larry Ellison, and chairman of Paramount Skydance, the company that now owns CBS. The move came after the Ellisons paid an insane amount of money to acquire Weiss’s publication The Free Press. Paramount has since engaged in a sordid public display of corruption with the Trump administration as the Ellisons push to take over Warner Brothers, which would also give them domain over CNN. (Trump also gave the Ellisons a lucrative stake in TikTok.)
In a public letter this week, Pelley accused Weiss and her regime of “murdering” 60 Minutes and its legacy. He said she and her new regime tried to “inject falsehoods and bias” into their stories, an allegation that echoed Alfonsi’s account about the handling of her CECOT report. At the time, Weiss claimed that Alfonsi’s piece needed more sourcing and told her to push harder to get a response from the Trump administration. It was a dubious justification, one that appeared to betray a serious misunderstanding of the moment we’re in. This is an administration that lies and misinforms routinely. Falsehoods and propaganda are central to its agenda.
Of course, Weiss understands perfectly well the moment we’re in. She knows she wasn’t put in charge of CBS News because of her skeptical nature or keen journalistic eye. She was put in charge because she has shown that she can leverage a carefully crafted image as an iconoclast and teller of truths to launder MAGA propaganda so that it’s more palatable to centrists. She was put in charge because the Ellisons need Trump’s blessing for their mega merger – and if ever there was a favor tailor-made to win Trump’s approval, it’s kneecapping a major news network and toppling one of the last remaining pillars of broadcast journalism in the process.
Weiss has positioned herself and her publications as bold disruptors, then leveraged that image to legitimize some of Trump’s worst rhetoric and policies. And few issues better demonstrate that pattern than immigration.
A few months ago, a video that popped up in my Facebook feed. It featured Madeleine Rowley, then a reporter for the Weiss-led Free Press, doing an interview with the morning show of Weiss-led CBS News.
Rowley was discussing her reporting on a group of recently-arrived Afrikaner immigrants, the white South Africans the Trump administration has been welcoming as refugees on the baseless claim – amplified by white nationalists – that South Africa’s majority Black government is systematically oppressing white people. In a February story titled “South African Refugees Are Left to Fend for Themselves,” Rowley amplified the Afrikaners’ complaints about their arrival in the U.S. They had given up their livelihoods, homes, and cars to come here, apparently expecting to step into ready-made middle class lives funded by U.S. taxpayers. Instead, according to Rowley, they were resettled in bad neighborhoods full of litter and crime, or in apartments infested with roaches. Some said it was unfair to put them in cities, where they, as farmers, couldn’t make a living. One complained that the nearest grocery store was two miles away.
Rowley blamed these allegedly subpar conditions on the NGOs that contract with the federal government to resettle refugees to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This is of a piece with her coverage of these issues more broadly: The federal government is paying NGOs astronomical sums of public money to implement a poorly-run system that’s rife with waste, fraud, and abuse.
Rowley’s piece provoked a response from the Trump administration, which promised her that “help is on the way.” That in turn led to a follow-up by Rowley praising the White House. The CBS interview, then, was a victory lap. Rowley credited the administration for vowing to fix the problems with the resettlement system that “have been happening for years.” You can watch it here:
The interview is wildly misleading. So I started looking into Rowley’s reporting on migration and border issues for The Free Press. I consulted with experts at think tanks, leaders of refugee advocacy groups, and an aide to a Congressional committee that oversees immigration. All of them have their own criticisms of the resettlement program that has long provided the infrastructure for assisting refugees. But they also said Rowley’s coverage is laughably divorced from the real world.
“I feel like The Free Press has been reporting from an alternate reality,” Yael Schacher of Refugees International, a group that advocates for refugees but is not part of the resettlement program, told me. “It’s certainly true that refugees need more money and more help resettling. But to make that point while praising the current administration is hard to swallow. It’s just wrong in so many different ways.”
The NGOs who resettle refugees are a recurring villain in Rowley’s work. For example, she has also reported on unaccompanied minors who show up at the border, and many of the same NGOs who work on the resettlement program also provide aid and care for those minors. Here, too, Rowley has echoed conspiratorial claims from the far right. During the Biden administration, she cited extremist anti-immigrant sources, who claimed that corrupt NGOs and Biden’s lax border policies were facilitating sex trafficking and causing thousands of migrant children to be “lost.”
Once Trump took office, many of Rowley’s anti-immigration sources were appointed to high-ranking positions. So, as she continued her attacks on the NGOs, she also began credulously peddling the new administration’s absurd braggadocio – not only is Trump fixing the badly broken resettlement system, he is also “saving” migrant children from Biden’s haplessness and indifference.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize how Biden handled border issues. But Rowley’s reporting is a grossly distorted picture of what’s actually happening. If there’s one thing my sources agreed on, it’s that the first 16 months of Trump’s second term have thrown the entire system into chaos. His policies have hurt America’s standing in the world, jeopardized national security, and made things a lot worse, not better, for children who may be trafficked or exploited at the border. He has also betrayed the country’s legacy as a refuge for the persecuted.
I’ll address Rowley’s claims about migrant kids and sex trafficking in a forthcoming post. For now I want to focus on her coverage of Afrikaners and the refugee resettlement program.
The refugee resettlement program
The U.S. refugee resettlement program was created in 1980 by the Refugee Act. The federal government had been informally funding nonprofits who work with refugees since the end of World War II, but the 1980 bill created some structure and a formal budget.
The U.S. State Department once described the program on its website this way:
Reflecting the best humanitarian traditions of the American people, the U.S. Government funds protection and life-sustaining relief for millions of refugees and victims of conflict around the globe. The United States also admits tens of thousands of refugees annually for permanent resettlement . . .
That description was in 2006, during the George W. Bush administration, but until last year the language had been pretty similar across multiple administrations.
The program has never assisted people who enter the country illegally. And with the exception of the unaccompanied minors I mentioned above, it also doesn’t work with people who show up at the border to request asylum. Instead, it works with those who apply to the program from abroad, either from a refugee camp to which they’ve fled, or in rarer cases from their home countries.
The people allowed into the program undergo an extensive vetting process, and are required to show evidence of persecution in their home countries. Once accepted, they’re then sponsored by one of the ten or so NGOs that contract with the federal government. The NGOs facilitate the refugees’ arrival and arrange for housing. They also provide them with short-term money for food, clothing, furniture, and other essentials.
The contracts typically cap the amount the NGOs can spend per refugee at around $2,500. Aid is intended for the first weeks and months after refugees arrive and is distributed and overseen by the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM).
After a few months, care for resettled refugees is transferred to the Office of Refugees and Resettlement (ORR), which is run through the Department of Health and Human Services. ORR has a separate budget to provide ongoing assistance to refugees. The same nonprofits who work with PRM typically continue to work with refugees as they start to build their lives. In some cases, ORR funds go to state governments, who then separately contract with the same NGOs, or with state and local nonprofits. ORR funds can pay for healthcare, food and clothing, job training, English classes, and other services.
Both PRM and ORR have flaws and inefficiencies. The experts I spoke to pointed out that the same nonprofits have been doing this work for decades, and most agreed that the system would benefit from some new blood and new ideas. There’s also debate within the community of advocates about whether it would be more productive to steer fewer people to the big, international NGOs and more toward the smaller, local nonprofits who tend to be better positioned to match refugees’ needs.
That said, the resettlement program has been an astounding success, not only in providing relief and assistance to people in crisis, but in generating tangible economic benefits here in the U.S. Over the last 45 years, impact studies have shown that refugees from places like Bosnia, Iraq, Vietnam, Haiti, Sudan, the Congo, Nigeria, Bhutan, and numerous other countries and regions have thrived after coming to the U.S., boosting – and in some cases revitalizing – the economies of towns and cities across the country, particularly in the Rust Belt.
Nevertheless, nativists on the right have always hated the program. The people it helps overwhelmingly come from the developing, nonwhite countries that Trump believes to be “shitholes.” During Trump’s first term, his own administration commissioned a study on the impact of the resettlement program on the U.S. economy. The study found that resettled refugees contribute $6 billion more to the U.S. economy than they take out. Per year.
The Trump administration did exactly what you’d expect: They suppressed the study, and then they lied about it. They tried to release a summary that only reported the costs of resettling refugees, while omitting the billions they contribute each year. We know this only because the full report was eventually leaked to the press.
Trump and his supporters have intensified the racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric in his second term. Stephen Miller is now in charge of immigration and migration policy, and has made clear that he wants to stop accepting refugees entirely. Trump himself has said more than once that he’d rather take immigrants from “nice” countries like Norway or Switzerland while disparaging entire nationalities of people – Somalis, Haitians, Congolese – as “garbage” and “criminals.”
And they’ve backed that ugly rhetoric with policy. Under federal law, the president has the power to put a cap on the number of refugees admitted to the resettlement program. Upon taking office for his first term, Trump set the cap at its lowest since the program began, slashing it from 85,000 under Obama in 2016 to just 12,000 in 2017. Joe Biden raised the cap to 120,000 only for Trump to quickly reset it to 7,500 immediately after returning to office, breaking his own record low. That’s a 95 percent reduction.
Within a day of his swearing in on January 20, 2025, Trump froze all funding to the resettlement program. Immediately, 10,000 refugees who had been pre-approved to come to the U.S. were stranded in the countries they were trying to flee. Some had already booked flights to the U.S. Others were literally en route. Many faced ongoing or imminent persecution in their home countries. Those stranded included Afghans who had aided and supported U.S. troops during the war, Christians and LGTBQ+ people facing prosecution in countries like Iran, and members of groups currently being targeted with genocide.
Just days later, on January 24, 2025, Trump issued stop work orders to all of the resettlement NGOs, preventing them from using HHS funds to assist refugees already here. That left another 22,000 recently arrived refugees cut off from services that were supposed to help them find housing, job training, English classes, and education and healthcare for their children. A month later, the administration terminated all existing government contracts with the NGOs.
The federal courts eventually restored funding for the program, but conceded that they couldn’t dictate how the administration spent it. So Trump has continued to fight to restrict funding and access to services for already-admitted refugees, while simultaneously stripping them of their status.
Additionally, Trump has retroactively revoked the status of thousands of refugees who were already living here. Again, these are people we promised we would accept, resettle, and protect. Refugees who were vetted and pre-approved to come, live, and work in the U.S. instantly became undocumented people living in the country illegally. They’re now being threatened with arrest and deportation. Some have already been detained and deported, either back to the countries they fled, or to third countries – usually in the developing world – that they’ve never known, and where they don’t speak the language.
It was as he was doing all of that – uprooting people’s lives, threatening to separate many of them from their spouses and children, and reneging on the country’s promises to them – that Trump invited the Afrikaners to come to the U.S.
It now seems clear that Afrikaners will be the only refugees this administration allows into the U.S. As I mentioned, last year Trump reduced the refugee cap to 7,500 people per year. The administration subsequently accepted 6,000 people into the resettlement program between October and April. All but three were Afrikaners. (The three exceptions were Afghans, but Trump later revoked their status, too.) Last month, Trump announced that he’d be taking in an additional 10,000 refugees. But all of those slots – every single one – will also be reserved for Afrikaners.
The resettlement program was intended to provide a refuge for desperate and persecuted people. Instead, we’re paying to resettle thousands of middle class, exclusively white people from South Africa.
The Free Press’s pro-Trump slant
This brings me to Rowley’s coverage of immigration, asylum, and refugee issues for The Free Press.
Bari Weiss has always touted herself as pro-immigration and pro-immigrant. But from the start, The Free Press’s immigration coverage has put more emphasis on mocking the supposed naiveté of immigration advocates and the cultural left than, say, the dangerous rise of nativism and white nationalism on the right.
When it launched in January 2021, the publication leaned heavily into the “Biden’s open borders crisis” narrative. And while it still publishes occasional pro-immigration pieces, that perspective has been overwhelmed by its water-carrying for the right on more immigration-adjacent issues like crime, Gaza, multiculturalism, protest and campus activism, anti-elitism (a fairly hilarious position given the social status of Weiss and her cadre of billionaire funders), and disdain for NGOs, academia, and institutions like USAID.
Rowley, who started writing for The Free Press at the end of 2023, was formerly a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, the think tank that employs rabid anti-immigrant voices like Heather Mac Donald and Christopher “They’re Eating Your Pets” Rufo. A recent sampling of her social media feed makes pretty clear where her politics lie: She has pined for the days of prison slave labor, praised Donald Trump, amplified Rufo, pushed general anti-immigrant propaganda, and simped for authoritarian Trump policies like pursuing “fraud” claims against defense attorneys who represent people seeking asylum.
I’ve been critical of The Free Press’s self-described “heterodox” approach to journalism, which has repeatedly prioritized ideology over accuracy. When I exhaustively documented the factual errors in a column about the conviction of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, Weiss didn’t issue any corrections. Instead, she invited me on to her podcast to debate Coleman Hughes, the column’s author, then published a response from him that was also riddled with errors.
So when Rowley’s CBS News video popped up on my Facebook page earlier this year – along with language praising the Trump administration for promising to improve the refugee program – I was immediately skeptical. After watching it, I was dumbfounded. Rowley not only lauded the administration for promising to fix the problems she laid out in her piece on the Afrikaners, she declared that these fixes would improve the resettlement program “for years to come.”
CBS News viewers weren’t told that Trump has done all he can to eliminate the program entirely, and is now mocking the very idea of America as a refuge for the persecuted by admitting only Afrikaners.
“Some Afrikaners Trump admitted to the U.S. have already returned to South Africa, apparently finding persecution and genocide preferable to not living within a few miles of a grocery store.”
In her initial Free Press report about the Afrikaners, Rowley did at least include a few obligatory lines about Trump lowering the refugee cap, and how inviting the Afrikaners was “highly controversial.” But that’s a sweeping understatement of what it really is: a cynical, naked appeal to racism, white nationalism, and conspiracist grievance.
In one especially galling part of her CBS interview, Rowley mentioned an Afghan refugee who she said “was essentially neglected by their agency and placed in a home where there was no furniture . . . It was inadequate care.” Her implication was that the administration’s promise to do better by Afrikaners would also benefit people like this anecdotal Afghan refugee.
That isn’t merely wrong, it’s a deceptive whitewashing of the specific cruelty this administration has shown toward Afghan refugees. Under federal law, the U.S. is supposed to provide a path to residency for Afghan citizens who aided U.S. forces during the war. For years, veterans and advocates have said the federal government has failed to keep that promise, and that as they waited, the translators, sources, and informants who helped them were in danger. The threat became much more pronounced after the U.S. withdrawal, in 2022, so the Biden administration created Operation Allies Welcome, which accepted 90,000 Afghans who had aided U.S. forces, along with their families, though only after extensive vetting.
Trump and the nationalist right have excoriated that program and called for it to be eliminated. Last summer, Trump used the shooting of two National Guard soldiers in D.C. by an Afghan national as an excuse to collectively punish all Afghan refugees. He stopped the processing of visas for Afghans who had been told they could come, and tried to cut aid to those already here. Many of those promised a life here for themselves and their families have since been arrested and detained for possible deportation. Not because they did anything wrong. Because they’re Afghan. (This Reveal interview with a Baptist minister who leads an NGO trying to save Afghan citizens under threat from the Taliban is incredibly moving.) The State Department recently announced that it hasn’t processed a single Special Immigrant Visa for Afghans in 2026.
Trump’s order also left more than 1,000 Afghans who had been approved for Allies Welcome stuck on a U.S. military base in Qatar. He is refusing to admit them into the program. The New York Times reported last month that the administration is negotiating to send them to the Congo, a country in the midst of a brutal war, and already faced with the worst refugee crisis on the planet.
Simping for bigots
Whatever their history, the Afrikaners Trump admitted undoubtedly came to this country in search of a better life. But the fact remains that Rowley’s initial report was rooted in a racist conspiracy theory. The idea that Afrikaners have been persecuted by the South African government has been percolating for years in the fever swamps of white nationalists and far-right nativists – the same swamps Stephen Miller has traipsed through for most of his adult life. Right-wing figures like Elon Musk have amplified the claim using increasingly extremist language; last year he posted to his tens of millions of followers on X that Afrikaners aren’t just being persecuted, they’re victims of genocide.
Trump himself also used the term genocide during an Oval Office meeting with South African president Cyril Ramaphosa. After his most recent decision to accept 10,000 more Afrikaners, Trump said the move was necessary because of “an unforeseen emergency refugee situation” caused by “recent increases in the incitement of racially motivated violence.”
It’s just as much of a lie now as it was last year. Even South African groups who represent and advocate for Afrikaners have said there’s no evidence to support those claims.
There is no genocide. There isn’t even persecution. And there is no realistic definition of “refugee” that would include Afrikaners. It’s true that some parts of South Africa have high crime rates, and that some white-owned farms, which many in South Africa see as symbols of colonial oppression, have been targeted with robberies. I don’t doubt that some of the Afrikaners Rowley interviewed were victims of those and other crimes. But there’s no evidence that the South African government is encouraging crime against white farmers. In fact, most of the farmers who have been murdered have been Black.
South Africa did recently pass a law aimed at reclaiming some of the land that white colonialists took from native Black people. But people like Musk have exaggerated the powers it gives to the South African government. We can debate the fairness or propriety of that law, but most Afrikaners themselves have aggressively pushed back on the genocide and persecution claims, as have even the country’s major conservative political parties. In fact, white South Africans who left after the fall of apartheid have actually been returning in recent years. Even some of those Trump admitted to the U.S. have already returned, apparently finding persecution and genocide preferable to not living within two miles of a grocery store.
Some of my sources said Trump and Miller started the Afrikaner program when it became clear that the federal courts weren’t going to let them abolish the resettlement program outright. “It was them saying okay, if you’re going to make us do this, then we’re just going to spend this money on white people,” one leader of a resettlement NGO told me.
In other words, it was trolling.
“Inviting the so-called ‘refugees’ from South Africa was just petulant,” David Bier of the Cato Institute told me. “They were angry that they couldn’t eliminate the program, so they did it to irritate their critics.” As for the reports about the living conditions described by Rowley, Bier added, “I don’t think anyone should have to live in a roach-infested apartment, but yes, housing is expensive. That’s what the limited funding will get. Imagine the deafening outcry we’d hear if refugees from Somalia or Sudan were complaining about the housing they were getting from taxpayers.”
Two other experts told me that the very fact that Afrikaners are complaining about their accommodations is a good indication that they weren’t victimized or vulnerable – they’re accustomed to a much higher standard of living than typical refugees. What we do know for sure is that the Afrikaners are getting far better treatment than people in the resettlement program got in the past. Refugees normally need to show evidence of persecution to be accepted into the resettlement program. Trump waived that requirement for Afrikaners. The administration also appears to have waived much of the vetting process, which ordinarily takes a year or more. The South Africans began arriving within weeks after Trump announced his new policy.
Rowley’s coverage suggests that the NGOs who contract with the government have been stingy when it comes to resettling the Afrikaners. But as I previously explained, the NGOs are limited in how much they can spend on refugees shortly after they arrive – this is the PRM program run through the State Department. The limit is around $2,500, and it’s built into their contracts. Unless the Trump administration raises the limit for Afrikaners, that limit would continue to be in effect.
That said, my sources conceded that some of the NGOs have been hesitant about resettling Afrikaners. A lot of NGOs define their mission as helping people truly in need. Many are also supported by donors and grants with conditions on how they can spend money. They’re understandably torn about participating in a program rooted in racist falsehoods – and reluctant to give aid to comparatively well-off people based on unproven claims of persecution. This is why Episcopal Migration Ministries and some groups associated with Catholic Charities withdrew from the resettlement program once Trump made clear that it would only be open to Afrikaners.
Other NGOs have continued to participate, in part because of implicit threats from the administration that, if they refuse, they’ll be cut off from federal funding for their other humanitarian work. According to my sources, as with any nonprofit that doesn’t tow the administration’s line, these NGOs also have justifiable fears of being targeted by Trump’s hyper-politicized Justice Department. They watched Trump cut their funding and kill their contracts, then waited on litigation to determine whether or not they would survive. This has made it all but impossible to prepare budgets, retain staff, and plan ahead. And when you’re arranging accommodations for people flying to live in this country from all over the world, planning is important.
Federal funding is administered per head – NGOs get a set amount for each refugee they assist. So when Trump slashed the cap on refugees by 95 percent, the move hit them hard. Ironically, the bigger, international NGOs that Rowley has covered most critically are most likely to absorb the blow. It’s the smaller NGOs, which do some of the best, most vital work, that are now hanging by a thread. Many had to lay off large portions of their staff. They’re trying to navigate their obligations to the people they’re trying to resettle and to the private donors and foundations who have funded their work, while staring down an administration hellbent on denying assistance to anyone who isn’t a white, middle class South African.
Making America hostile to immigrants again
Even if you accept the false premise that Afrikaners are legitimate refugees, it is this administration’s own virulent anti-refugee policies that has made even their resettlement more difficult. Trump, for example, has reduced the window during which refugees can get modest aid for food and medical assistance from twelve months after arrival to four. His so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” prohibits refugees from getting Medicaid or food assistance through SNAP, despite that nearly all of them pay federal taxes.
Trump has also frozen the processing of green cards. He has banned foreign nationals from getting loans from the Small Business Administration, making it harder for new refugees to start the restaurants, shops, and other businesses that have been the lifeblood of immigrant communities and revived economically depressed communities. He is also attempting to restrict immigrants – documented or otherwise – from a wide range of services, from banking to federally-subsidized childcare.
But the most striking display of this administration’s priorities is what’s happening at PRM, the State Department agency that oversees the distribution of aid to recent arrivals. Last year Trump appointed a man named Andrew Veprek to run the office. Veprek, who some describe as an acolyte of Stephen Miller, was at the State Department during Trump’s first term. He was probably best known for attempting to kill a United Nations resolution calling on world leaders to denounce racism and hate speech.
Veprek became the man in charge of redirecting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that were once meant to assist refugees. Because Trump succeeded in slashing the refugee cap by 95 percent, but was prevented by the courts from eliminating the resettlement program, PRM still has its full budget. But it now only has a fraction of the number of refugees to spend it on. The result, according to my sources, is that Veprek’s office should be sitting on about $500 million that Congress earmarked specifically for assisting recently-arrived refugees. If you’re really concerned about Afrikaners being asked to live in roach-infested apartments, that’s probably the appropriate place to direct your ire.
So what does the administration plan to do with all this money? According to Pravek – and to my sources – they plan to use it for deportations.
That’s a jarring betrayal of PRM’s original mission, which was to provide “protection and life-sustaining relief for millions of refugees.” But to the Trump administration, it’s a course correction. At an event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies, a far-right group with white nationalist origins, Veprek boasted that, under Trump, PRM has transformed from “a humanitarian assistance bureau” to an office aimed at “implementing the president’s immigration agenda, including returning people from the United States to their home countries.” He then added, “We have an Office of Remigration that looks after these things.”
The term “remigration” was coined by far-right anti-immigrant and white nationalist groups. Remigration advocates go well beyond deporting undocumented immigrants or “securing the border.” They advocate purging western countries of non-white immigrants and their descendants entirely, regardless of citizenship. It is a form of ethnic cleansing. It’s awful enough that U.S. officials now openly embrace the term. But the Trump administration has also created a secretive actual “office of remigration” in the federal government. It’s an ominous warning about our backsliding.
It gets darker. Here’s Veprek again:
Another thing we’re working on is making arrangements for people who have been ordered removed from the United States but for whatever reason can’t go back to their home country. So we look for third countries that are willing to accept their transfer and accommodate them.
So it isn’t just deportations. Veprek is referring here to the population of people who were previously accepted into the resettlement program, had their acceptance revoked by Trump, and now likely won’t be let back into the countries they fled. He’s saying that they plan to use the PRM’s budget – taxpayer money appropriated by Congress to carry out a humanitarian mission – to banish those people to third countries, mostly in the developing world – sending Afghans to the Congo, for example.
Finally, Veprek also made clear, in case there was any doubt, that Trump is not welcoming the Afrikaners to the U.S. in the name of humanitarianism. It’s about trolling the libs. “South Africa is kind of the DEI regime par excellence,” he said, “and so there is an important kind of signaling function in why we want to bring people from South Africa here.
After nearly half a century of touting itself as the beacon of America’s decency and humanitarianism, here’s how PRM now describes itself on its website:
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) conducts diplomacy aimed at ending mass and illegal migration. PRM also provides targeted, time-bound humanitarian assistance to advance U.S. immigration and foreign policy goals.
Rowley and The Free Press want you to think Trump is saving the resettlement program.
The truth is that they they’re doing all they can to destroy it.
My biggest concern with Weiss and the Free Press has always been their consistent, blatant intellectual dishonesty. Worse is that FT is sometimes held up as a moderate or legitimate perspective that happens to be conservative. Legitimate it is not. I am grateful that you continue to make this point.