Pro-life students are demonstrating against the “Repro Fund,” a program that uses mandatory student fees to finance abortions.
![Head of U.S. bishops joins call for Notre Dame to drop appointment of pro-abortion professor #Catholic U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Archbishop Paul Coakley is urging the University of Notre Dame to drop the leadership appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion professor, joining nearly a dozen bishops in calling on the historic Catholic university to back away from the controversial decision. The controversy at Notre Dame exploded this week after Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the school's appointment of Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.Ostermann has in the past spoken out strongly in favor of abortion and sharply criticized the pro-life movement, at times suggesting that its roots are in "white supremacy" and misogyny. Rhoades said Ostermann's beliefs, coupled with her leadership promotion at the Catholic school, were “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Multiple U.S. bishops from around the country backed Rhoades's call throughout the week, with Coakley himself speaking out about the controversy on Feb. 13. "I fully support Bishop Kevin Rhoades in his challenge to Notre Dame to rectify its poor judgement in hiring a professor who openly stands against Catholic teaching when it comes to the sanctity of life, in this case protection of the unborn," Coakley said in a statement on X. TweetThe statement was shared hundreds of times on X, including by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Though criticism against Notre Dame's decision has come from top Catholic leadership in the U.S. throughout the week, the school has indicated that it will be standing by its plan to have Ostermann lead the institute. Notre Dame told EWTN News on Feb. 13 that Ostermann is "a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar" who is "well prepared" to serve in the role. At the same time the university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann herself has told media that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage." She has described herself as "fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish."](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/head-of-u-s-bishops-joins-call-for-notre-dame-to-drop-appointment-of-pro-abortion-professor-catholic-u-s-conference-of-catholic-bishops-president-archbishop-paul-coakley-is-urging-the-university-of.jpg "Head of U.S. bishops joins call for Notre Dame to drop appointment of pro-abortion professor #Catholic U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Archbishop Paul Coakley is urging the University of Notre Dame to drop the leadership appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion professor, joining nearly a dozen bishops in calling on the historic Catholic university to back away from the controversial decision. The controversy at Notre Dame exploded this week after Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the school's appointment of Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.Ostermann has in the past spoken out strongly in favor of abortion and sharply criticized the pro-life movement, at times suggesting that its roots are in \"white supremacy\" and misogyny. Rhoades said Ostermann's beliefs, coupled with her leadership promotion at the Catholic school, were “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Multiple U.S. bishops from around the country backed Rhoades's call throughout the week, with Coakley himself speaking out about the controversy on Feb. 13. \"I fully support Bishop Kevin Rhoades in his challenge to Notre Dame to rectify its poor judgement in hiring a professor who openly stands against Catholic teaching when it comes to the sanctity of life, in this case protection of the unborn,\" Coakley said in a statement on X. TweetThe statement was shared hundreds of times on X, including by Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the bishop emeritus of Hong Kong. Though criticism against Notre Dame's decision has come from top Catholic leadership in the U.S. throughout the week, the school has indicated that it will be standing by its plan to have Ostermann lead the institute. Notre Dame told EWTN News on Feb. 13 that Ostermann is \"a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar\" who is \"well prepared\" to serve in the role. At the same time the university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.” Ostermann herself has told media that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage.\" She has described herself as \"fully committed to maintaining an environment of academic freedom where a plurality of voices can flourish.\"")
The school has indicated it will stick by its decision for Professor Susan Ostermann to lead a university institute.
![Amid criticism by bishops, Notre Dame says pro-abortion professor ‘well prepared’ to lead institute #Catholic The University of Notre Dame is signaling that it will stick by its appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion advocate to lead a university institute even after bishops from around the U.S. have criticized the decision and urged the school to change course.Multiple bishops have lamented the school’s decision to appoint global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. The school announced the appointment in January.On Feb. 11 Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, whose diocesan territory includes the university, expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the appointment and called on the school to rescind the assignment, citing Ostermann’s public support for abortion.Several of Rhoades’ brother bishops followed suit, commending Rhoades for his statement and similarly calling on the university to reverse course on Ostermann’s appointment.Yet in a Feb. 13 statement to EWTN News, the school indicated that it would not pull Ostermann’s nomination to the leadership post.Ostermann “is a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar whose insightful research on regulatory compliance … demonstrates the rigorous, interdisciplinary expertise required to lead the Liu Institute,” the school said.Calling Ostermann a “deeply committed educator,” the school said she is “well prepared to expand the institute’s global partnerships and create impactful research opportunities that advance our dedication to serving as the preeminent global Catholic research institution.”The university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.”“Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said.The school did not immediately respond when asked for direct confirmation that it was continuing with Ostermann’s appointment to lead the Liu Institute.But its statement suggested the school is not backing down from the controversial decision, one that has brought withering criticism from both U.S. bishops and pro-life advocates and has seen the departure of at least two academics from the storied Catholic institution.Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.Ostermann’s outspoken abortion advocacy has included instances where she has linked the pro-life movement to white supremacy and misogyny.The professor told the National Catholic Register in January that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage” and described herself as “inspired by the university’s focus on integral human development, which calls us to promote the dignity and flourishing of every person.”She told the Register that her role at the school “is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda.”Ostermann had no further comment beyond her earlier statement, according to a university spokesperson.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/amid-criticism-by-bishops-notre-dame-says-pro-abortion-professor-well-prepared-to-lead-institute-catholic-the-university-of-notre-dame-is-signaling-that-it-will-stick-by-its-appoin.jpg "Amid criticism by bishops, Notre Dame says pro-abortion professor ‘well prepared’ to lead institute #Catholic The University of Notre Dame is signaling that it will stick by its appointment of an outspoken pro-abortion advocate to lead a university institute even after bishops from around the U.S. have criticized the decision and urged the school to change course.Multiple bishops have lamented the school’s decision to appoint global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. The school announced the appointment in January.On Feb. 11 Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, whose diocesan territory includes the university, expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the appointment and called on the school to rescind the assignment, citing Ostermann’s public support for abortion.Several of Rhoades’ brother bishops followed suit, commending Rhoades for his statement and similarly calling on the university to reverse course on Ostermann’s appointment.Yet in a Feb. 13 statement to EWTN News, the school indicated that it would not pull Ostermann’s nomination to the leadership post.Ostermann “is a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar whose insightful research on regulatory compliance … demonstrates the rigorous, interdisciplinary expertise required to lead the Liu Institute,” the school said.Calling Ostermann a “deeply committed educator,” the school said she is “well prepared to expand the institute’s global partnerships and create impactful research opportunities that advance our dedication to serving as the preeminent global Catholic research institution.”The university stressed its “unwavering” commitment “to upholding the inherent dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life at every stage.”“Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said.The school did not immediately respond when asked for direct confirmation that it was continuing with Ostermann’s appointment to lead the Liu Institute.But its statement suggested the school is not backing down from the controversial decision, one that has brought withering criticism from both U.S. bishops and pro-life advocates and has seen the departure of at least two academics from the storied Catholic institution.Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.Ostermann’s outspoken abortion advocacy has included instances where she has linked the pro-life movement to white supremacy and misogyny.The professor told the National Catholic Register in January that she “respect[s] Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage” and described herself as “inspired by the university’s focus on integral human development, which calls us to promote the dignity and flourishing of every person.”She told the Register that her role at the school “is to support the diverse research of our scholars and students, not to advance a personal political agenda.”Ostermann had no further comment beyond her earlier statement, according to a university spokesperson.")
Multiple U.S. bishops have criticized the school’s decision and urged it to rescind the appointment.
![Archbishop Coakley mourns execution of Oklahoma murderer, urges prayers for end to death penalty #Catholic Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley this week lamented the state’s execution of convicted murderer Kendrick Simpson, urging prayers for an end to what he called the “inhumane” punishment of the death penalty. Oklahoma executed Simpson on Feb. 12 for the 2006 murders of 20-year-old Glen Palmer and 19-year-old Anthony Jones. Simpson was convicted of killing the two in a shooting outside of an Oklahoma City nightclub.Simpson’s execution came after the state’s Pardon and Parole Board voted against his clemency petition. The U.S. Supreme Court similarly rejected his appeal. He was pronounced dead at 10:19 a.m. on Feb. 12. Coakley in a statement on X said the execution — coming shortly after the state’s March for Life — “brought into stark reality just how much work remains” for pro-life advocates in the state. Tweet“Heinous crimes should not go unpunished and our compassion and support for the victims and their loved ones is necessary,” the archbishop said, urging the faithful to “pray for those left behind [who are] often dealing with incomprehensible grief.”Yet “the intentional killing of the perpetrator cannot heal those terrible wounds,” Coakley said, arguing that the “pain and loss of one death cannot be extinguished by another violent death.”“The death penalty is inhumane and a poor method of punishment, standing in opposition to our duty to respect and value all human life and cherish God’s plan for humankind, which includes merciful justice and the opportunity for the redemption of the soul,” he said. Coakley has long been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, having regularly called for its abolition while arguing that it “only contributes to the continued coarsening of society and to the spiral of violence.”Oklahoma, meanwhile, has for years been among the most execution-heavy states in the country; it is first among states in executions per capita and seconded only by Texas in total numbers of executions.Coakley himself is among the numerous U.S. prelates who regularly advocate against capital punishment in their respective states. The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment.The archbishop on Feb. 12 urged the faithful to join him in “praying for an end to the death penalty in our state and nationwide.” He also urged prayers “for the victims, Glen Palmer and Anthony Jones, and their families, as well as Kendrick Simpson and his family.”Simpson himself had openly confessed to the murders ahead of his execution as part of his clemency plea before the state board.At the hearing he also addressed the families of his victims, telling them directly: “I apologize for murdering your sons.”“I don’t make any excuses, I don’t blame others, and they didn’t deserve what happened to them,” he said.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/archbishop-coakley-mourns-execution-of-oklahoma-murderer-urges-prayers-for-end-to-death-penalty-catholic-oklahoma-city-archbishop-paul-coakley-this-week-lamented-the-states-execution-of-con.jpg "Archbishop Coakley mourns execution of Oklahoma murderer, urges prayers for end to death penalty #Catholic Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley this week lamented the state’s execution of convicted murderer Kendrick Simpson, urging prayers for an end to what he called the “inhumane” punishment of the death penalty. Oklahoma executed Simpson on Feb. 12 for the 2006 murders of 20-year-old Glen Palmer and 19-year-old Anthony Jones. Simpson was convicted of killing the two in a shooting outside of an Oklahoma City nightclub.Simpson’s execution came after the state’s Pardon and Parole Board voted against his clemency petition. The U.S. Supreme Court similarly rejected his appeal. He was pronounced dead at 10:19 a.m. on Feb. 12. Coakley in a statement on X said the execution — coming shortly after the state’s March for Life — “brought into stark reality just how much work remains” for pro-life advocates in the state. Tweet“Heinous crimes should not go unpunished and our compassion and support for the victims and their loved ones is necessary,” the archbishop said, urging the faithful to “pray for those left behind [who are] often dealing with incomprehensible grief.”Yet “the intentional killing of the perpetrator cannot heal those terrible wounds,” Coakley said, arguing that the “pain and loss of one death cannot be extinguished by another violent death.”“The death penalty is inhumane and a poor method of punishment, standing in opposition to our duty to respect and value all human life and cherish God’s plan for humankind, which includes merciful justice and the opportunity for the redemption of the soul,” he said. Coakley has long been an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, having regularly called for its abolition while arguing that it “only contributes to the continued coarsening of society and to the spiral of violence.”Oklahoma, meanwhile, has for years been among the most execution-heavy states in the country; it is first among states in executions per capita and seconded only by Texas in total numbers of executions.Coakley himself is among the numerous U.S. prelates who regularly advocate against capital punishment in their respective states. The Death Penalty Information Center says that 23 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment.The archbishop on Feb. 12 urged the faithful to join him in “praying for an end to the death penalty in our state and nationwide.” He also urged prayers “for the victims, Glen Palmer and Anthony Jones, and their families, as well as Kendrick Simpson and his family.”Simpson himself had openly confessed to the murders ahead of his execution as part of his clemency plea before the state board.At the hearing he also addressed the families of his victims, telling them directly: “I apologize for murdering your sons.”“I don’t make any excuses, I don’t blame others, and they didn’t deserve what happened to them,” he said.")
The archbishop called for prayers for both the family of the killer’s victims and the killer himself.
![BREAKING: Bishop Rhoades expresses ‘strong opposition’ to professor’s appointment at Notre Dame #Catholic Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the University of Notre Dame’s appointment of a pro-abortion professor to a leadership position at the school, with the bishop urging the university to “make things right” and rescind the appointment. Notre Dame has been at the center of controversy since early January when it named global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. Ostermann is an outspoken pro-abortion advocate who has regularly criticized the pro-life movement, up to and including linking it to white supremacy and misogyny. The university has come under fire for the appointment, including from Catholic advocates and pro-life students at Notre Dame. Bishop urges school to retract appointmentIn his Feb. 11 statement, Rhoades — whose diocesan territory includes the university — said that since the controversy began he has read many of Ostermann’s pro-abortion op-eds and was moved to “express my dismay and my strong opposition to this appointment,” which he said is “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Ostermann’s public support of abortion and her “disparaging and inflammatory” criticism of the pro-life movement “go against a core principle of justice that is central to Notre Dame’s Catholic identity and mission,” the prelate said. The professor’s pro-abortion advocacy and her remarks about pro-life advocates “should disqualify her from an administrative and leadership role at a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.While expressing hope that Ostermann would “explicitly retract” her pro-abortion advocacy and change her mind on abortion, the bishop said that the appointment “understandably creates confusion” regarding Notre Dame’s Catholic mission and identity.Leadership appointments “have [a] profound impact on the integrity of Notre Dame’s public witness as a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.The bishop in issuing the letter cited the apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which directs in part that bishops “have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity.”“I call upon the leadership of Notre Dame to rectify this situation,” Rhoades said. Noting that Ostermann’s appointment is not scheduled to go into effect until July 1, the prelate wrote: “There is still time to make things right.”The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment from EWTN News. Yet the school has defended Ostermann’s appointment since the controversy erupted, telling media that she is “a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar” who is qualified to lead the Liu Institute. “Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said. Among criticism from both within and without the school, at least two scholars have resigned their position at the Asian studies institute in response to the appointment. Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/breaking-bishop-rhoades-expresses-strong-opposition-to-professors-appointment-at-notre-dame-catholic-fort-wayne-south-bend-indiana-bishop-kevin-rhoades-on-feb-11-expres-scaled.jpg "BREAKING: Bishop Rhoades expresses ‘strong opposition’ to professor’s appointment at Notre Dame #Catholic Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, Bishop Kevin Rhoades on Feb. 11 expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition” to the University of Notre Dame’s appointment of a pro-abortion professor to a leadership position at the school, with the bishop urging the university to “make things right” and rescind the appointment. Notre Dame has been at the center of controversy since early January when it named global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. Ostermann is an outspoken pro-abortion advocate who has regularly criticized the pro-life movement, up to and including linking it to white supremacy and misogyny. The university has come under fire for the appointment, including from Catholic advocates and pro-life students at Notre Dame. Bishop urges school to retract appointmentIn his Feb. 11 statement, Rhoades — whose diocesan territory includes the university — said that since the controversy began he has read many of Ostermann’s pro-abortion op-eds and was moved to “express my dismay and my strong opposition to this appointment,” which he said is “causing scandal to the faithful of our diocese and beyond.”Ostermann’s public support of abortion and her “disparaging and inflammatory” criticism of the pro-life movement “go against a core principle of justice that is central to Notre Dame’s Catholic identity and mission,” the prelate said. The professor’s pro-abortion advocacy and her remarks about pro-life advocates “should disqualify her from an administrative and leadership role at a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.While expressing hope that Ostermann would “explicitly retract” her pro-abortion advocacy and change her mind on abortion, the bishop said that the appointment “understandably creates confusion” regarding Notre Dame’s Catholic mission and identity.Leadership appointments “have [a] profound impact on the integrity of Notre Dame’s public witness as a Catholic university,” Rhoades said.The bishop in issuing the letter cited the apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which directs in part that bishops “have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity.”“I call upon the leadership of Notre Dame to rectify this situation,” Rhoades said. Noting that Ostermann’s appointment is not scheduled to go into effect until July 1, the prelate wrote: “There is still time to make things right.”The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment from EWTN News. Yet the school has defended Ostermann’s appointment since the controversy erupted, telling media that she is “a highly regarded political scientist and legal scholar” who is qualified to lead the Liu Institute. “Those who serve in leadership positions at Notre Dame do so with the clear understanding that their decision-making as leaders must be guided by and consistent with the university’s Catholic mission,” the school said. Among criticism from both within and without the school, at least two scholars have resigned their position at the Asian studies institute in response to the appointment. Robert Gimello, a research professor emeritus of theology who is an expert on Buddhism, told the National Catholic Register that his “continued formal association with a unit of the university led by such a person is, for me, simply unconscionable.”Diane Desierto, a professor of law and of global affairs, also told the Register that she had cut ties with the institute over the appointment.")
Notre Dame has been at the center of controversy since early January when it named global affairs Professor Susan Ostermann as director of the school’s Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies.
![Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/democratic-lawmaker-asks-ice-director-if-hes-going-to-hell-in-fiery-hearing-catholic-a-democratic-lawmaker-asked-u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice-acting-direc.jpg "Democratic lawmaker asks ICE director if he’s ‘going to hell’ in fiery hearing #Catholic A Democratic lawmaker asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons whether he believes he is “going to hell” in a contentious hearing with the House Homeland Security Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 10.Lyons — along with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow and Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott — testified before the committee as Congress negotiates potential reforms and funding for the agencies.On Feb. 3, Congress voted to extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which operates the three agencies, until Feb. 13 to end a four-day partial government shutdown. A deal has not yet been reached to extend funding further.At the hearing, Democratic lawmakers accused ICE of terrorizing the streets, using excessive force, and lacking accountability. Republicans defended ICE and rebuked Democratic officials in certain states for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.One of the fiercest exchanges came from Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-New Jersey, who praised protesters for “peacefully rejecting your cruel agenda in the streets.” She said ICE believes it is “the highest power who decides which people deserve dignity, protection, and due process” and said “you are wrong [and] we are here for answers.”“How do you think judgment day will work for you, with so much blood on your hands?” McIver asked Lyons, to which he responded that he would not entertain the question.“Do you think you’re going to hell?” she followed up, before being chastised by Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, who told her to avoid personal attacks on witnesses and maintain decorum.McIver said “you guys are always talking about religion here, and the Bible.” She changed the subject slightly and asked Lyons whether he could name agencies that “routinely kill American citizens and still get funding,” which he also said was a question he was “not going to entertain.”“Once again, questions that you cannot answer and that is exactly why … we should not be funding this agency,” McIver said. “The people are watching you; they are watching you. And this is why we need to abolish ICE.”Lawmakers debate ICE operations, future of agencyThe killings of two American citizens at ICE protests — Renée Good and Alex Pretti — were a focal point of the hearing, and two examples that Democrats used to accuse ICE of excessive force and lacking accountability.Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-California, referenced both killings and criticized DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for referring to those who died as “domestic terrorists.” He asked Lyons whether he would apologize to the families or reject that characterization.Lyons said he would not comment on an ongoing investigation but would welcome a private conversation with the families.Democrats are split on whether to reform ICE or abolish it altogether.Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-Rhode Island, brought up instances in which he believes ICE used excessive force and suggested reforms are necessary before Congress awards funding.“It’s not just the actions of the agents in the field,” he said. “It is the lack of accountability from the top that has caused public trust to erode, and there needs to be major reforms before we vote to give any of you any more funding.”Alternatively, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Illinois, called for abolishing ICE and the entire DHS, which Congress formed to address terrorism threats after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ramirez said DHS was created to “violate our rights under the pretense of securing our safety.”“I’m going to say it loud and clear and I’m proud to stand by what I say,” she said. “DHS cannot be reformed. It must be dismantled and something new must take its place.”Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, commented during the hearing that Democratic lawmakers “have called to abolish ICE [and] now they’re trying to shut it down” amid the negotiations and discussion during the hearing.He criticized the lack of coordination from Democratic-led “sanctuary” states and cities, which do not cooperate with ICE, saying the policies in Minneapolis “created a perfect storm for our officers being thrown into this situation.”Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, similarly expressed concern about ICE funding moving forward, based on the debates between the two parties.“It seems like one side of the aisle is in favor of open borders and wants to abolish ICE … and the other side of the aisle wants to enforce laws that are on the books,” he said.During the question and answer, Lyons expressed worry about the rhetoric from Democrats and noted that threats and assaults against ICE agents are on the rise. He said agents are trying to “keep America safe, restore order to our communities, [and] return the rule of law to this country.”“Those who illegally enter our country must be held accountable,” he said.Scott also showed concerns about the ongoing debate and expressed hope that DHS could receive support from both Republicans and Democrats.“I believe consistency and seeing support from the leadership on both sides of this building and the president is very important for our security,” he said. “I think the rhetoric and the … politicizing of law enforcement in general detracts from the general morale of our personnel.”Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told “EWTN News Nightly” that he sees “much of [the Democratic threats to halt funding] as political theater,” noting that ICE will continue to operate regardless of whether Congress passes the funding bill.He said Democrats hope to take away an issue that made Trump popular during the 2024 election “and turn it into a bad issue for Republicans” in the midterms.Arthur said there may be some shifts in ICE’s approach in Minneapolis now that Border Czar Tom Homan is involved in seeking the “cooperation of state and city governments” that have been “reluctant, if not hostile” to immigration enforcement over the past year.The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in November 2025 approved a special message with a 216-5 vote that declared opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”Late last month, about 300 Catholic leaders — including 15 bishops — asked Congress to reject ICE funding if the legislation fails to include reforms that have protections for migrants.")
Top U.S. immigration officials defended their policies during a contentious hearing as lawmakers continue to negotiate potential ICE funding and reforms.
In spite of opposition from Catholic bishops and patient advocate groups, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law physician-assisted suicide in New York.
