A new examination by The New York Times paints a portrait of an administration that repeatedly hesitated at critical moments, brushing aside early guidance that might have eased the humanitarian and political fallout at the southern border. Advisers raised alarms during the first weeks of Joe Biden’s presidency, cautioning that dismantling Trump-era restrictions too quickly could spark “chaos,” yet those internal concerns were overridden as the White House raced to reset immigration policy.
The rapid reversal of deterrence measures sent migrant encounters soaring almost immediately in 2021. Processing centers buckled under the influx, major cities absorbed financial and logistical strain, and public frustration escalated as images of overrun facilities and overwhelmed municipalities dominated the news cycle. According to the Times, Biden’s team misread both the scale of global migration pressures and how sharply voters would react to the crisis.
Interviews with former officials reveal a White House deeply sensitive to criticism from progressive activists. Political advisers worried that any move toward tougher enforcement could fracture Biden’s coalition. That reluctance, they now say, boxed the administration in and ceded a powerful opening for Donald Trump and his allies heading into 2024.
The Times outlines repeated internal efforts to pursue more assertive responses — from streamlining asylum processing to expanding short-term holding space or implementing stronger deterrence tools — but many of those ideas stalled. In some instances, officials recalled policy blueprints being floated, dissected, and ultimately watered down or abandoned. One even described plans for a major border speech that were shelved entirely, leaving the public with the impression that the administration hoped the crisis would fade on its own.
The absence of a clear guiding approach was summed up starkly by Scott Shuchart, who joined the administration in 2022 as a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Biden White House “had no strategy, because they had no goal,” he said. “All they had was wishing the problem would go away so that they could focus on the things they cared about.”
As the Times noted, this vacuum met a system already buckling under outdated statutes and an asylum backlog that can take years to adjudicate. Biden initially maintained Title 42 but quickly unwound other restrictions, halted further border wall work, narrowed enforcement priorities, and moved to suspend “Remain in Mexico.” Former aides told the Times these steps were widely interpreted by migrants as a signal that border controls were loosening, adding momentum to already rising flows driven by instability abroad and cartel operations.
By spring of 2022, pressure on border states boiled over. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott launched busing operations to Washington, D.C., both to relieve small border towns and to protest what he argued was federal inaction. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis soon adopted a similar tactic. Mayors across the country appealed for coordination and federal support, but the Times reported that Washington remained locked in disputes over legal authority and concerns about “incentivizing” even more migration.
At the same time, Biden’s expansion of “legal pathways” and humanitarian parole drew intense scrutiny. Critics charged that these mechanisms served as an “open border” workaround that sidestepped Congress, while the administration defended them as part of a compassionate and orderly framework.
By the point the White House pivoted toward tighter enforcement as the 2024 election loomed, the operational strain, political deterioration, and cultural polarization surrounding the issue had already taken root — a trajectory internal critics say might have been avoided had early warnings been heeded.
{Matzav.com}
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made it clear he has no intention of stepping away from public life in return for leniency in his corruption case, dismissing any notion that he would bargain his political future for a pardon.
During a joint appearance with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, a reporter raised the question of whether he would consider leaving politics as part of a plea arrangement. Netanyahu answered with trademark humor. “They’re very concerned with my future. They want to make sure that — how shall I say this? — They’re concerned with my future,” he jokes, prompting laughter at the press event.
Netanyahu said the real arbiters of his future were not prosecutors or political analysts, but the Israeli public. “Well, so are the voters, and they’ll decide, obviously,” he says, before shifting the focus to Israel’s growing partnership with Germany. He noted that both countries were engaged in far-reaching initiatives that would exceed even the high level of collaboration forged in previous years. “We have big tasks to do, including with Germany in historic cooperation that will actually, actually will, in many ways, tower over our previous cooperation, which was quite amazing,” he says.
Gesturing toward Merz, Netanyahu added a playful nod to the chancellor’s height. The continuing strength of Israeli-German relations, he suggested, was only fitting given the stature of his counterpart: “But that’s not surprising, because, as you can see, Chancellor Merz is a towering figure,” he says.
{Matzav.com}
New York’s political and health leadership unleashed an intense backlash on Friday after a federal advisory panel voted to strip away the long-standing recommendation that every newborn in the United States receive the hepatitis B vaccine immediately after birth. What had been a universal guideline for decades was recast by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as a selective recommendation, applying only to babies whose mothers test positive for the virus or have not been screened.
The shift—an 8–3 vote—was met with alarm from public health officials nationwide, many of whom emphasized that the routine birth dose has been widely credited with preventing thousands of hepatitis B infections over the years. Under the new guidance, newborns of mothers who test negative would start the vaccine series at two months unless parents and clinicians decide otherwise.
New York leaders quickly became some of the loudest voices condemning the move. Gov. Kathy Hochul, outraged by the committee’s decision and the administration overseeing it, accused national policymakers of endangering vulnerable children. “As a mom who spent countless doctor’s office visits making sure my kids were vaccinated to protect them from deadly diseases, it’s devastating to see the Trump administration willing to let babies and children die,” she said. She added, “I guess nothing should surprise us anymore,” continuing her critiques of the administration’s broader health policies.
City officials echoed the alarm. Dr. Michelle Morse, New York City’s acting health commissioner, publicly rejected the credibility of the advisory group itself. “The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which guides our nation’s vaccine policy, is no longer a trusted source,” she said, arguing that the panel’s pivot disregards decades of established research. “The decision to ignore nearly thirty years of successful clinical evidence is harmful. We are witnessing the creation of confusion at the expense of our nation’s health, with significant risk toward our babies.”
In response to the uproar, the New York State Department of Health emphasized that the federal vote would not affect state policy. “These national advisory votes do not alter New York’s evidence-based recommendations, which continue to include a hepatitis B vaccine birth dose for every newborn, without delay, as well as completion of the full vaccine series in infancy,” the department announced. The NYC Health Department likewise affirmed its position, with Morse reiterating that her office “continues to strongly recommend the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns to protect the health of our youngest New Yorkers.”
The controversy also drew attention to the makeup of the advisory committee itself, as all current ACIP members were appointed by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is widely known for his anti-vaccine advocacy. The intersection of policy, politics, and public health has now set off a nationwide debate over how vaccine recommendations should be crafted—and who should be shaping them.
{Matzav.com}
