Trump’s Decisive Asylum Reform: Ends the Backlog Scam Once and For All

By Roger Stone
July 30, 2026

On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a major change designed to reduce the asylum backlog. The Trump administration issued an interim final regulation formally titled “Affirmative Asylum Referrals Without Interview” (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0199 / RIN 1615-AD18).

Affirmative asylum applications are filed by people already present in the United States who are not in removal proceedings. The goal is to cut the massive backlog of asylum cases. By the end of fiscal year 2025, USCIS had more than 1.4 million affirmative applications still pending.

Under the new regulation, asylum officers can refer certain affirmative applications directly to immigration judges without first interviewing the applicant. This ends the lengthy process in which USCIS interviewed the person, reviewed the file, and only then decided whether to grant asylum, deny the claim, or refer the case.

Previously, a referral required a second full hearing in immigration court, delaying cases. Now USCIS can refer applicants based only on the written record if they appear barred, ineligible, or undeserving of asylum, eliminating the redundant interview and double examination.

Interviews will still be required before USCIS grants or denies asylum, and in any case where the law or a court settlement demands one. Even if someone is referred without an interview, they can still present their full case, including testimony, before an immigration judge.

Officers can still review the application materials and request additional evidence before making a referral. The regulation also removes language that suggested applicants had a general “right” to an interview before being referred.

Administration officials described the change as a way to curb abuse and waste. USCIS Director Joseph Edlow was blunt: the asylum process “has been exploited for purposes of delay and work authorization, not legitimate claims of protection.” He stressed that priority must go to people with genuine persecution claims, not those gaming the system.

DHS General Counsel James Percival pointed to deliberate stalling by applicants and their lawyers as a major obstacle to enforcement, adding that the change advances the president’s push for a tighter, more efficient system.

DHS projects the change could affect about 132,000 future affirmative applicants each year by speeding up the process for both asylum officers and immigration judges and by eliminating overlapping reviews.

As Edlow put it, “America’s asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and this rule will help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole.” Percival added that the change fulfills the president’s mandate for greater efficiency.

News

Mayor Mamdani Has No Place at the September 11 Memorial This Year or Any Other

By Roger Stone
July 30, 2026

If Zohran Mamdani wishes to honor September 11, he should begin by acknowledging the profound pain his own conduct has caused.

The 25th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks is not a political rally, a campaign opportunity, or a stage upon which ambitious public officials can rehabilitate their reputations. It is a sacred day of remembrance dedicated to the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans murdered by Islamic terrorists, the first responders who ran toward the flames while others fled, the military men and women who answered the nation’s call in the wars that followed, and the families whose lives were forever shattered. It belongs to them. It does not belong to politicians whose public record demonstrates repeated sympathy for those connected to the very ideology that produced the deadliest terrorist attack in American history.

Yesterday Mayor Zohran Mamdani stood firm at a press conference and announced he would attend the official commemorations. That decision is an act of extreme cruelty toward the city he governs and toward every family still carrying the weight of that clear September morning. Even entertaining the idea of his presence at the Memorial or among the survivors and the bereaved shows a complete absence of basic human decency. The growing petition urging organizers to exclude him from the 25th anniversary ceremony is not motivated by religious prejudice, political partisanship, or personal animosity. It reflects something far more profound. Survivors of the attacks, relatives of those who never came home, retired police officers, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and ordinary New Yorkers understand that September 11 is about remembering those who suffered unimaginable loss. It is not compatible with elevating a public official whose own record repeatedly displays astonishing indifference toward that suffering while extending understanding, admiration, or political solidarity toward those associated with radical causes.

Perhaps the clearest illustration of Mamdani’s moral blindness comes from his own public recollections of September 11. When discussing the attacks, he has focused not on the thousands who were murdered, the firefighters climbing burning stairwells, the police officers searching the collapsing towers, the office workers trapped above the impact zones, or the children who would grow up without parents. Instead, the principal story he has publicly chosen to emphasize concerns an extended female family member who, because she wore a hijab, reportedly received uncomfortable looks from strangers in New York following the attacks. No decent person condones harassment or discrimination against innocent people because of their religion or appearance. Americans rightly rejected such conduct after September 11, just as they reject it today. But the extraordinary imbalance in Mamdani’s public emphasis speaks volumes. Faced with reflecting upon the worst terrorist attack in American history, his first instinct was not to mourn nearly 3,000 murdered Americans or celebrate the extraordinary heroism displayed that day. His central concern became the social discomfort experienced by a member of his extended family. That inversion of priorities has become a defining feature of Mamdani’s public life.

New Yorkers have every right to demand an explanation for his disturbing and unmistakable pattern of embracing convicted supporters of terrorism and publicly celebrating figures whose records have long troubled victims of Islamist extremism. This is no longer about one reckless lyric recorded during his career as an obscure rapper. It is about a public official who has repeatedly chosen to praise, honor, and associate himself with individuals connected to some of the darkest chapters in New York City’s history.

In his 2017 song “Salaam” Mamdani declared, “My love to the Holy Land Five. You better look ’em up.” Americans who haven’t already done so should do exactly that. The Holy Land Five were senior officials of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development which federal prosecutors described as a financial support operation for Hamas. A federal jury convicted the defendants in 2008 of offenses related to providing material support to Hamas, an organization legally designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. Two of the defendants received 65 year federal prison sentences, while the others received terms ranging from 15 to 20 years. Mamdani did not simply question the prosecution or argue about legal procedure. He voluntarily sent them his “love.” That statement may enjoy constitutional protection, but the Constitution certainly does not require New Yorkers to ignore what it reveals about the political instincts and moral judgment of the man who now governs America’s largest city.

His record did not end there. Mamdani also publicly embraced Imam Siraj Wahhaj, posing proudly beside him and praising him as one of America’s leading Muslim figures. Wahhaj was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted coconspirator during the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing. He was never charged and has denied wrongdoing. Nevertheless, his long history of defending convicted extremists and criticizing American counterterrorism efforts was widely known long before Mamdani sought his endorsement. Mamdani wanted New Yorkers to see that photograph. He distributed it himself. Only after public outrage erupted did his supporters attempt to dismiss it as routine community outreach.

Survivors of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing immediately understood what Mamdani apparently did not care to acknowledge. On February 26, 1993 terrorists detonated a massive truck bomb on the B2 level of the World Trade Center garage beneath the North Tower, murdering seven people, including an expectant mother named Monica Rodriguez Smith and her unborn child while injuring more than a thousand others. Their objective was to topple one tower into the other and slaughter tens of thousands. Although that attempt failed, the bombing was a terrible warning of the jihadist threat that would return eight years later with almost unimaginable consequences. A candidate seeking to govern New York City should have understood the sensitivity of embracing a figure whom prosecutors had named in connection with that investigation. Mamdani either knew Wahhaj’s history and did not care, or he failed to conduct the most elementary examination of a prominent supporter he publicly celebrated. Neither explanation is acceptable.

These episodes cannot be dismissed in isolation. Viewed together, they reveal a consistent pattern. Mamdani has repeatedly extended sympathy toward convicted Hamas supporters, embraced controversial figures closely associated with the ideological defense of Islamist extremism, associated himself with terror supporters who chant “From the River to the Sea” and regularly condemns the institutions responsible for defending the United States and its allies while showing remarkably little urgency in condemning those who deliberately target innocent civilians. He has promoted sanctuary policies designed to impede federal immigration enforcement and has repeatedly aligned himself with a radical political movement that reserves its greatest hostility not for terrorists, murderers, or hostage takers, but for Israel, law enforcement, and the United States government. His ridiculous claim that he was going to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu during The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was just another recent example of his hateful behavior towards America and Israel.

Mamdani is no longer an obscure performer hiding behind the stage names Young Cardamom or Mr. Cardamom. He is the 112th mayor of New York City, responsible for a municipal government of enormous size and consequence. He receives sensitive intelligence and public safety briefings, influences the leadership and priorities of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and governs a city that remains an international symbol and a premier target for terrorist organizations. New Yorkers are therefore entitled to judge his associations according to the responsibilities of his office.

Many were understandably disturbed when Mamdani was sworn into oath office on the Quran. And while The Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, and an American’s choice of scripture does not establish sympathy for terrorism, the decision was revealing and the evidence is Mamdani’s own public commentary and conduct. By focusing on his religion rather than his record, careless critics provide him with a convenient opportunity to evade responsibility and portray every legitimate objection as anti-Muslim prejudice. The case against Mamdani does not require speculation about his private faith because his own words and associations are sufficiently damning. Millions of patriotic Muslim Americans love this country, serve in uniform, wear police badges, work as firefighters, and honor the victims of September 11 alongside every other American. They deserve respect and gratitude. The issue is not Mamdani’s faith. The issue is Mamdani’s own words, associations, and repeated political choices.

The establishment media has worked relentlessly to isolate each episode and drain it of significance. The Holy Land Five lyric is portrayed as artistic expression from his youth. The Wahhaj photograph is dismissed as ordinary community outreach. His hostility toward Israel is characterized as principled human rights advocacy, while his resistance to federal enforcement is presented as compassion for immigrants. Each excuse is carefully constructed to prevent the public from examining the cumulative record. Yet when these episodes are viewed together, they demonstrate a consistent willingness to legitimize extremists, excuse their defenders, and reserve his condemnation for the institutions that confront them.

New York City has paid an incalculable price for political leaders who refuse to recognize threats until bodies are being removed from the rubble. The families of those victims should not now be lectured about tolerance by politicians who extend affection toward convicted Hamas supporters and embrace controversial figures connected to the earlier attack on the World Trade Center. Mamdani has demonstrated a chronic inability and unwillingness to draw the most basic moral distinction between those who defend the United States against terrorism and those convicted of assisting terrorist organizations. He treats the supporters and defenders of extremists and terrorists as members of a persecuted political community deserving admiration, while regularly portraying American and Israeli authorities as the true aggressors.

September 11 commemorations are not intended to sanitize or erase that record. For the families who lost husbands, wives, parents, children, brothers, sisters, friends, and colleagues, these ceremonies represent one of the few days each year when the nation pauses to remember the people stolen from them.

Survivors still carry the physical scars, the respiratory illnesses, the emotional trauma, and the memories of that horrific morning. Firefighters and police officers still remember recovering human remains from the smoking ruins. Those families should not be forced to stand beside a mayor whose public conduct has repeatedly demonstrated greater concern for those who defend or rationalize extremists than for those who were murdered by them.

A mayor who truly understands what September 11 means would instinctively center the victims. He would speak first about the murdered office workers, the firefighters climbing into the inferno, the police officers who never returned home, the passengers aboard Flight 93 who sacrificed themselves to save others, and the generations of children forced to grow up without parents. He would leave no ambiguity whatsoever about the evil of Hamas, al-Qaeda, and every organization that glorifies or finances terrorism. Instead, Mamdani has spent years creating ambiguity where none should exist.

The only person Mamdani has ever publicly expressed any concern for in connection with the aftermath of the attacks was that extended female family member who received some odd looks because of her hijab. That is the sum total of his public empathy. Not the nearly 3,000 murdered, those now suffering from various illnesses as a result of the rescue and recovery efforts, those whose lives were lost during The Global War on Terror (GWOT). Not the firefighters, police officers, and first responders who ran toward the burning towers. Not the widows, the orphans, the parents who never recovered the remains of their children. An extended relative who got stares for her headscarf. This is who he worries about. Not the victims.

His “From the River to the Sea” terrorist pals who celebrate Hamas attacks and treat October 7 as resistance rather than massacre, along with his regular and reflexive condemnation of American values, should be more than enough to keep him away.

September 11 is about memory. It is about truth. It is about honoring courage and condemning evil without qualification or hesitation. Those who have repeatedly blurred those moral lines should not expect to occupy a place of honor at ceremonies dedicated to the innocent dead.

The 25 anniversary belongs to the victims, the survivors, the rescue workers, and the families who continue to carry unimaginable grief. Their voices deserve far greater respect than the political ambitions of a mayor whose own record has convinced so many New Yorkers that he simply does not understand what that day means.

If Zohran Mamdani wishes to honor September 11, he should begin by acknowledging the profound pain his own conduct has caused. Until then, the most respectful place for him on that solemn anniversary is somewhere other than the official memorial ceremony. He should stay away this year and every year.

News

Flock Cameras Harm Law Enforcement’s Aims and Kill Our Constitutional Rights

By Roger Stone
July 29, 2026

It is time for localities and states to ban these cameras immediately before society becomes a powder keg.

As MAGA Republicans watch American cities decay under decades of Democrat governance—rising crime, open disorder, failed soft-on-crime policies—Flock cameras are being floated as a plausible solution. These automated license-plate readers have proliferated by the tens of thousands across the country, often installed with little public notice or debate. What began as a quiet expansion has now triggered a widespread and growing backlash. That backlash is far from irrational. It is the natural response of free people who recognize a fundamental threat to their privacy rights when they see one.

Reports of vandalism against Flock cameras have multiplied in recent months. In Rio Rancho, New Mexico, a man was charged after damaging multiple units and leaving homemade flags as a calling card afterward. In Houston, cameras were cut down and spray-painted, one with an American flag stuck in it. Dallas police reported a surge of 25 intentional damage incidents since March. In Grand Junction, Colorado, a man shot three cameras with a rifle. Similar attacks have occurred in Oakland, Oregon, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and elsewhere—poles sawed through, solar panels destroyed, cameras paint-bombed or simply ripped out.

These acts are illegal and should not be excused. Destroying property solves nothing and should result in prosecution. However, free people will only be pushed so far. Technology is transforming society at breakneck speed, generating disruption and profound angst as a result. When unmistakable symbols of a rising surveillance grid appear on every major road that can track your every movement, the pressure builds quickly. Left unchecked, that pressure risks escalating into something violent or deadly. Flock cameras have become a prolific, everyday reminder of the Orwellian agenda advancing in plain sight.

MAGA Republicans must reject the excuses offered by the surveillance state and its corporate stooges. Consider the words of Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley. He has referred to transparency activists who simply map the locations of these publicly visible cameras as a “terroristic organization,” later issuing a tepid apology only after widespread backlash. Langley has dismissed concerns about how the data is used for immigration enforcement by saying the company has “no opinion” and that authorities will enforce the law “no matter what Flock does.” He has framed opposition as people merely angry at the federal administration or seeking to “normalize lawlessness.” These are not the statements of a man who cares one iota about the liberties that our founding-era revolutionaries fought, killed and died for. This is a technocrat who wants to line his pockets even if it means destroying the Constitution and replacing it with a China-style police state.

In actuality, Flock cameras are not a force multiplier for traditional law enforcement. They are a quiet technological substitute for it. They represent a sneaky end-run around the demand to fund and support community police. Instead of putting more officers on the street, more detectives on cases, and more resources into the necessary, human work of policing, the system offers a dystopian surveillance grid that watches vehicle movements at scale. The authority shifts from local beat cops who understand their neighborhoods to a networked database controlled by distant administrators and private vendors. This is not strengthening law enforcement. It is defunding it by other means—replacing judgment, presence, and accountability with automated observation.

We need more resources flowing into actual police work, not less. Flock cameras pull resources in the opposite direction. Orwellian tyranny is being substituted for the local officer who walks a beat, builds relationships, and deters crime through their presence. That substitution is terrifying, and it makes us less safe in the long run. A government without restraint is more dangerous than any street criminal. The Founding Fathers understood this with absolute clarity. They designed a system of limited powers and enumerated rights precisely because they had seen what unchecked authority does. They did not trust benevolent intentions. They trusted structure, accountability, and the people’s retained rights.

Yes, a dense network of cameras can help solve some crimes after the fact by placing a vehicle at a location. That is not in dispute. But the cost is catastrophic. There is no longer any meaningful presumption of privacy on the roads of America. Because the cameras are everywhere, the expectation becomes that every movement will be logged. This is the functional end of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Continuous tracking of the public’s movements changes human behavior. People self-censor, alter routes, avoid certain destinations, and live under the knowledge that their patterns are being recorded and can be queried. We become lab rats in an experiment run by technocratic elites who insist it is all for our own good. That is un-American and abominable.

Consider what these systems would enable during the next COVID-style emergency. With the flick of a switch, vehicle tracking could enforce quarantine zones, monitor “non-essential” travel, and identify those who failed to comply with whatever mandate the moment demanded. Personal liberty would immediately become a lost vestige of the past. The same infrastructure lends itself to other nightmare scenarios that should alarm every patriot nationwide. Imagine systematic tracking of citizens traveling to gun stores, ranges, or Second Amendment events, feeding databases that later justify “red flag” actions or selective enforcement.

Imagine monitoring attendance at political rallies, church services, school board meetings, or protests against progressive policies, with patterns used to identify and pressure dissenters. These actions have already happened under previous Democrat administrations and would be turbocharged under Flock camera surveillance, and it could easily be taken to another, scarier level. Imagine the network integrated with digital identification or future central-bank digital currencies so that movement itself becomes a conditional privilege. Imagine climate or “equity” lockdowns that restrict travel by vehicle type, destination, or political reliability. Each of these is a natural extension of a system that already maps the daily movements of millions without individualized suspicion. It is the next step on the road to the inescapable reality of Big Brother.

We cannot build a panopticon simply because we are frightened. The panopticon, conceived by Jeremy Bentham as a prison design in which inmates never know whether they are being watched and therefore police themselves, was later diagnosed by historian Michel Foucault as the model for modern disciplinary societies. Its hellish nature lies in the permanent possibility of observation. Freedom does not survive under the knowledge that every trip is potentially logged, queried, and retained for later use by whatever authority holds the keys. Fear of crime is real and legitimate. Capitulation to total surveillance is not the answer.

Give police the tools, staffing, training, and political backing they need to be effective against actual criminals. Crack down hard on violent offenders, repeat predators, illegal aliens, and the chaos that has been tolerated for too long. Do it the way free societies have done it for generations—through officers, investigation, prosecution, and punishment—without destroying the core constitutional rights that make America distinct. That model once worked. Americans were safer when the government remained limited and rights remained primary. We can return to that past glory. We cannot do so by accepting false dichotomies that force a choice between safety and liberty. Those who demand we surrender privacy in exchange for the promise of security are selling a devious lie. It is time for localities and states to ban these cameras immediately before society becomes a powder keg.

News