Catholic U.S. House Democrats cited Church teaching in defense of the dignity of migrants as Trump administration officials defend immigration enforcement.
![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.
Public schools in the United States are required by the U.S. Constitution to allow students and staff to pray, the government said this week.
![‘My Catholic faith guides me’: HHS assistant secretary speaks on policy, saints #Catholic Adm. Brian Christine, assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and a practicing Catholic, talked about the state of the pro-life movement as well as his own faith in an interview on “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly” on Wednesday.Christine, a practicing Catholic, said the HHS values religious freedom.“We are not going to allow health care practitioners to be disparaged or be discriminated against because of their faith,” he told host Abigail Galvan. “We faithful don’t have to check our faith at the door to practice medicine or science.”For his part, Christine said his faith and the example of the saints guides him.“My Catholic faith guides me,” he said. “Every decision that I make — I don’t set my faith aside at the door.”When asked if he had a particular devotion, Christine said he takes inspiration from many saints.“I don’t have a patron saint — I have a whole cloud of witnesses,” he said. “I have a whole cloud of saints because I need them. I’m really devoted to St. Peter the Apostle — I’ve made so many mistakes in my life. I’ve fallen so many times. But you get back up and St. Peter could deny the Lord, and yet there he is, the rock of the Church, the first pontiff, the first Holy Father.”“St. Thomas More, who really stood strong to serve in government and yet ultimately did what was right, and he paid the ultimate price,” Christine said.Christine said he also looks to a more recent blessed, Blessed Clemens August Graf von Galen, the archbishop of Münster in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, and how he spoke out against euthanasia in his time.“He was known as the Lion of Münster because [of] his homilies against the Nazi T4 program, which was the euthanasia of those the Nazis considered undesirable for life or unworthy of life,” Christine said. “He preached such strong homilies against the T4 program that the Nazis ultimately stopped that program.”Abortion pillChemical abortions make up nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions and are being mailed across state lines, even to states where unborn children are protected throughout pregnancy. Due to easy access to the abortion drug, mifepristone, abortion rates are climbing, making it a key issue in the pro-life movement.But action against chemical abortions has stalled in the Trump administration, which promised an investigation into the safety concerns for women surrounding the abortion pills.
Adm. Brian Christine, a practicing Catholic who serves as the assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, speaks with Abigail Galvan on “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly” on Feb. 4, 2026. | Credit: “EWTN Pro-Life Weekly” screenshot
When asked about this, Christine said that “data is being collected” and a review is “ongoing,” saying “the commissioner of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], Dr. Marty Makary, has certainly committed to doing a review of the safety of mifepristone.”“That review is ongoing because we want to make sure we have the best data about the potential harm of mifepristone so that women can make truly informed-consent decisions,” Christine continued. “If women are considering using that drug, they need to understand what the implications may be.”Compassionate mental health careFor the HHS, “compassionate mental health care” for minors suffering from gender dysphoria “is incredibly important to the country,” Christine said.“It’s incredibly important to those most vulnerable, these minors who suffer from gender dysphoria, because gender dysphoria is a real condition, a mental health condition,” Christine said.Referring to an HHS study, Christine said that “using castrating chemicals — that is not the way to treat these vulnerable children.”“If you use the mental health support, the vast majority of these children are going to be very happy in their own skin,” he continued. “We don’t need to be cutting off body parts.”“We don’t need to be giving them chemicals that are going to cause irreversible harm for the rest of their life,” Christine said. “We have been very strong about this in the Trump administration. We have been led by [HHS] Secretary [Robert] Kennedy, and we’re never going to back away from these things.”](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/my-catholic-faith-guides-me-hhs-assistant-secretary-speaks-on-policy-saints-catholic-adm-brian-christine-assistant-secretary-for-health-at-the-department-of-health-and-human-ser-scaled.png)
Adm. Brian Christine, a practicing Catholic, talked about the state of the pro-life movement and how his faith guides him.
![Pro-life movement has mixed reaction after Trump’s first year of second term #Catholic
Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News
Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA).
Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/pro-life-movement-has-mixed-reaction-after-trumps-first-year-of-second-term-catholic-participants-in-a-pro-life-rally-hold-signs-in-front-of-the-lincoln-memorial-in-washington-d-c-on-scaled.jpg)
Participants in a pro-life rally hold signs in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2023, at a rally marking the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. | Credit: Joseph Portolano/EWTN News
Jan 20, 2026 / 14:37 pm (CNA).
Members of the pro-life movement have mixed thoughts on the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, noting many wins early into his presidency but a number of shortfalls as time has gone by.
Some wins include defunding Planned Parenthood, walking back some of President Joe Biden’s initiatives, and removing foreign aid funding for organizations that promote abortion. However, a lack of action on chemical abortions and weakened rhetoric surrounding taxpayer-funded abortions are causing concern.
A notable pro-life win was included in the tax overhaul bill signed by Trump in July, which cut off all Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide a large number of abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.
Amid funding cuts, nearly 70 Planned Parenthood affiliates shut down. The administration also initially cut off Title X family planning grants from the abortion giant, but those have resumed.
The president pardoned pro-life protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and blocked foreign aid from supporting organizations that promote abortion. He rescinded several policies from the Biden administration, including one that paid Pentagon workers to travel for abortions. He also established strong conscience protections for pro-life doctors.
“Right out the gate, we saw some progress on the pro-life issue,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA), told EWTN.
Yet, she cautioned: “We have also not seen progress in the one area that matters the most — and that’s on abortion drugs.”
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. launched a study into the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone in September 2025, but so far no action has been taken to curtail the drug. Rather, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) went in the opposite direction, approving a generic version of mifepristone later that same month.
Pritchard said that move was “the opposite of what they should have done,” and referred to the generic mifepristone as “a new kill pill to increase the number of abortions that are done in this country.”
She said Kennedy’s promised study has “absolutely been moving too slow” and added that there is no confirmation it even began or is taking place. SBA called for FDA Commissioner Marty Makary to be fired following allegations he was “slow-walking the report for political reasons,” she said.
Trump has said abortion should be regulated by the states, but Pritchard warned “those [pro-life] laws can’t be in effect at all, really, when mail-order abortion happens with the abortion drugs.”
“They’re allowing [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom and [New York Gov.] Kathy Hochul and their blue state friends to completely nullify the pro-life laws in states like Texas and Florida,” she said.
Joseph Meaney, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, similarly said “the delay in the promised review of the rushed process in which mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug by the FDA has frustrated pro-lifers.”
“When the FDA approved a second generic version of mifepristone, … it highlighted the lack of progress in fighting the leading means of doing abortions in the [United States],” he said.
Trump also began to waver on taxpayer-funded abortions early in 2026, asking Republicans to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment amid negotiations on extending health care subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. Trump later unveiled “The Great Healthcare Plan” and said the White House intends to negotiate with Congress to ensure pro-life protections.
Pritchard called taxpayer-funded abortion “a very basic red line” and said it’s “concerning to see Republicans back away from something so basic.”
She warned Republicans to not take pro-life voters for granted in the upcoming midterms, saying “you’ll lose the elections and we won’t have the majority of Congress” without pro-life voters.
“You must remain the pro-life party or you will lose the midterms if you decide to bow to the pro-death Democrat agenda,” Pritchard said.
Meaney said there is “a widespread feeling that the second Trump administration has seemed to deprioritize issues important to the pro-life community,” adding he has “seen calls for pro-life groups to ‘flex their muscles’ and show that they cannot be taken for granted.”
However, he said the shortfalls “should not obscure the fact that the Trump administration has rolled back the Biden-era pro-abortion measures internationally and domestically.”
“It even achieved a temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood domestically in legislation,” he said. “The federal government no longer funds research on fetal tissues and defends the conscience rights of health care professionals and others robustly.”
Trump also signed an executive order that directed departments and agencies to boost access to and reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Catholic Church opposes IVF, which results in the destruction of human embryos, ending human lives.
Read More
Republicans say they are crafting a bill to permanently defund Planned Parenthood Jan. 13, 2026. | Credit: usarmyband, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Jan 14, 2026 / 16:19 pm (CNA).
House Republican lawmakers unveiled a framework that outlines their budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which includes permanently defunding large abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.
The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest Republican-aligned caucus in the House, published the framework on Jan. 13. The document is a starting point for crafting the budget but does not include any of the specific language that will ultimately be included in the bill.
According to the framework, House Republican leaders intend to “extend and make permanent” the temporary freeze on federal funds for abortion providers, which was included in the tax overhaul that President Donald Trump signed into law last July.
That bill included a one-year freeze on Medicaid reimbursements for organizations that provide abortions on a large scale. Although existing law had already blocked direct taxpayer funds for elective abortions, the change in law expanded the ban to include non-abortive services that are offered by organizations that perform abortions on a large scale.
If that provision is not extended or made permanent in the next fiscal year, Planned Parenthood would again be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements for its non-abortive services.
Many Republicans had initially hoped to implement a more long-term freeze on reimbursements for Planned Parenthood in last year’s bill, but that effort failed. The original House proposal last year planned a 10-year freeze, but it was reduced to only one year following negotiations and compromise.
A spokesperson for National Right to Life said the organization is “excited” by the framework, adding that “this proposal would benefit countless American families while also protecting unborn Americans by extending the current defunding of major abortion providers.”
“Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize abortion providers, and we are encouraged to see this principle reflected in the reconciliation framework,” the spokesperson said.
The ongoing one-year freeze already had a major impact on Planned Parenthood. Nearly 70 Planned Parenthood facilities closed last year, caused in part by the revenue stemming from those provisions in the tax overhaul.
Republicans hold a narrow five-seat majority in the House and a six-seat majority in the Senate, which means a small number of Republicans defecting could ultimately sink certain provisions.
The framework for the budget proposal also suggests an extension on the long-standing ban on direct federal funding for elective abortions, which has been included in federal budgets since 1976.
It also extends a ban on funds for “gender transition/mutilation procedures,” which was included in the tax overhaul.
According to the framework, both of these rules would apply to Medicaid reimbursements and tax credits provided through the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. According to the Republican Study Committee, the rules would save taxpayers about $2.9 billion in federal spending costs.
The framework for the budget priorities comes about one week after President Donald Trump asked Republicans to be “flexible” on language related to taxpayer-funded abortion in relation to negotiations surrounding extensions to health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.
Trump’s comments prompted criticism from some pro-life leaders, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.
In an Oval Office press conference Jan. 14, Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said they didn’t know anything about HHS funds being released to Planned Parenthood in December.
Read More![Homeland Security Department says rule will address religious worker visa backlog #Catholic
Credit: Lisa F. Young/Shutterstock
Jan 14, 2026 / 10:25 am (CNA).
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said it is addressing a religious worker visa backlog with rules that will reduce wait times and disruptions in ministry for faith-based communities.“Under the leadership of Secretary [Kristi] Noem, DHS is committed to protecting and preserving freedom and expression of religion. We are taking the necessary steps to ensure religious organizations can continue delivering the services that Americans depend on,” a DHS spokesperson said in a press release Wednesday. “Pastors, priests, nuns, and rabbis are essential to the social and moral fabric of this country. We remain committed to finding ways to support and empower these organizations in their critical work.”Under the rule expected to be issued Jan. 14, religious workers in the country on R-1 visas would no longer be required to reside outside of the U.S. for a full year if they reach their statutory five-year maximum period of stay before completing their green card applications. “While R-1 religious workers are still required to depart the U.S., the rule establishes that there is no longer a minimum period of time they must reside and be physically present outside the U.S. before they seek readmission in R-1 status,” DHS said.DHS acknowledged the significant demand for visas within the EB-4 category “has exceeded the supply for many years,” citing 2023 changes implemented by President Joe Biden’s State Department. “By eliminating the one-year foreign residency requirement, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] is reducing the time religious organizations are left without their trusted clergy and non-ministerial religious workers,” according to a DHS statement.The rule, expected to be issued at 11 a.m. Jan. 14, is effective immediately, DHS said.Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a press conference in December 2025 that the government would reveal its plan “early next month” for religious worker visas that would avoid giving preference to one denomination over another. Rubio noted that the plan would not favor one religion over another and that there would be “country-specific requirements depending on the country they’re coming from.” “I think we’re going to get to a good place,” Rubio said at the time. “We don’t have it ready yet. All this takes time to put together, but we’re moving quickly. I think we’ll have something positive about that at some point next month, hopefully in the early part of next month.”Visas for religious workers allow foreign nationals to work for a U.S. religious organization, through the temporary R-1 visa or a Green Card EB-4 visa, which requires at least two years of membership in the same denomination and a job offer from a qualifying nonprofit religious group.Rubio had also said in August the administration was working to create a “standalone process” for religious workers, separate from other competing applicants to the employment-based fourth preference (EB-4) category of visas that became severely backlogged after an unprecedented influx in unaccompanied minor applicants — most of which the USCIS has since alleged were fraudulent — who were added to the already-tight category under the Biden administration.In November 2025, a Catholic diocese in New Jersey dropped a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration’s State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, citing knowledge of a solution with national implications.Since the issue of the backlogged visas started, multiple U.S. dioceses have called for a solution. Priests in the Archdiocese of Boston who are in the U.S. on visas were urged to avoid international travel amid the Trump administration’s immigration policies and deportations.Priests and other Church leaders have expressed fear of having to leave their ministries and return to their home countries, then endure lengthy wait times before coming back. Church officials have warned that a continuing backlog could lead to significant priest shortages in the United States.“We are grateful for the administration’s attention to this important issue for the Church and value the opportunity for ongoing dialogue to address these challenges so the faithful can have access to the sacraments and other essential ministries,” a spokesperson for the USCCB told CNA.](https://unitedyam.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/homeland-security-department-says-rule-will-address-religious-worker-visa-backlog-catholic-credit-lisa-f-young-shutterstockjan-14-2026-1025-am-cna-the-department-of-homeland-security.jpg)
Credit: Lisa F. Young/Shutterstock
Jan 14, 2026 / 10:25 am (CNA).
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said it is addressing a religious worker visa backlog with rules that will reduce wait times and disruptions in ministry for faith-based communities.
“Under the leadership of Secretary [Kristi] Noem, DHS is committed to protecting and preserving freedom and expression of religion. We are taking the necessary steps to ensure religious organizations can continue delivering the services that Americans depend on,” a DHS spokesperson said in a press release Wednesday. “Pastors, priests, nuns, and rabbis are essential to the social and moral fabric of this country. We remain committed to finding ways to support and empower these organizations in their critical work.”
Under the rule expected to be issued Jan. 14, religious workers in the country on R-1 visas would no longer be required to reside outside of the U.S. for a full year if they reach their statutory five-year maximum period of stay before completing their green card applications.
“While R-1 religious workers are still required to depart the U.S., the rule establishes that there is no longer a minimum period of time they must reside and be physically present outside the U.S. before they seek readmission in R-1 status,” DHS said.
DHS acknowledged the significant demand for visas within the EB-4 category “has exceeded the supply for many years,” citing 2023 changes implemented by President Joe Biden’s State Department. “By eliminating the one-year foreign residency requirement, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] is reducing the time religious organizations are left without their trusted clergy and non-ministerial religious workers,” according to a DHS statement.
The rule, expected to be issued at 11 a.m. Jan. 14, is effective immediately, DHS said.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a press conference in December 2025 that the government would reveal its plan “early next month” for religious worker visas that would avoid giving preference to one denomination over another. Rubio noted that the plan would not favor one religion over another and that there would be “country-specific requirements depending on the country they’re coming from.”
“I think we’re going to get to a good place,” Rubio said at the time. “We don’t have it ready yet. All this takes time to put together, but we’re moving quickly. I think we’ll have something positive about that at some point next month, hopefully in the early part of next month.”
Visas for religious workers allow foreign nationals to work for a U.S. religious organization, through the temporary R-1 visa or a Green Card EB-4 visa, which requires at least two years of membership in the same denomination and a job offer from a qualifying nonprofit religious group.
Rubio had also said in August the administration was working to create a “standalone process” for religious workers, separate from other competing applicants to the employment-based fourth preference (EB-4) category of visas that became severely backlogged after an unprecedented influx in unaccompanied minor applicants — most of which the USCIS has since alleged were fraudulent — who were added to the already-tight category under the Biden administration.
In November 2025, a Catholic diocese in New Jersey dropped a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration’s State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and USCIS, citing knowledge of a solution with national implications.
Since the issue of the backlogged visas started, multiple U.S. dioceses have called for a solution. Priests in the Archdiocese of Boston who are in the U.S. on visas were urged to avoid international travel amid the Trump administration’s immigration policies and deportations.
Priests and other Church leaders have expressed fear of having to leave their ministries and return to their home countries, then endure lengthy wait times before coming back. Church officials have warned that a continuing backlog could lead to significant priest shortages in the United States.
“We are grateful for the administration’s attention to this important issue for the Church and value the opportunity for ongoing dialogue to address these challenges so the faithful can have access to the sacraments and other essential ministries,” a spokesperson for the USCCB told CNA.
Read More