

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Kevin Short, Physicians for Human Rights, media@phr.org
A new investigation by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) documents the severe health and human rights tolls of the Title 42 border expulsion order, under which the United States government has expelled children and adults seeking refuge at the U.S. border nearly one million times since March 2020.
"Neither Safety nor Health: How Title 42 Expulsions Harm Health and Violate Rights" exposes some of the consequences of the expulsion policy, including family separations, abusive actions by U.S. and Mexico government officials, and acute medical and psychological impacts on asylum-seeking children and adults. Based on in-depth interviews conducted in Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, Mexico in May 2021 with 28 expelled asylum seekers and six health professionals who provide medical care to migrants, the report underscores the dire consequences of the Title 42 ban and the urgency for the Biden administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to revoke the order.
Despite the order being implemented under the guise of a COVID-19 pandemic safety measure, public health experts have long objected to Title 42 expulsions and called out the lack of epidemiological evidence to justify banning only asylum seekers to the United States while keeping the borders largely open to other travelers. Although the ban was conceived by Trump administration officials, the Biden administration continues to expel hundreds of thousands of families and adults to countries where they face severe harm and persecution, violating their rights, threatening already traumatized people, and failing to protect public health.
In a first-of-its-kind approach to documenting the psychological effects of these expulsions and family separations, PHR researchers used validated Spanish-language screening tools to screen participants for mental health symptoms, including the PCL-5 Civilian scale for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL25) for anxiety and depression symptoms. Of the 26 participants who were administered validated screening tools, 96 percent screened positive for at least two disorders, and 88 percent screened positive for PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Parents interviewed by PHR reported that the family separations produced by Title 42 expulsions caused severe psychological harms to their children, resulting in excessive crying, disturbed sleep, and developmental setbacks such as resuming bed wetting. Eleven interviewees stated that their children were not eating and had lost significant weight due to the trauma of family separation.
The PHR report also sheds new light on abusive and dangerous actions by U.S. officials during the expulsion process. All 28 asylum seekers interviewed described gratuitously cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of the U.S. government, including physical and verbal abuse by border agents, inhumane detention conditions, active deception about their expulsion and the whereabouts of their family members, and unsafe returns that put people at great risk of harm. Of those interviewed by PHR, 11 people were forcibly separated from family members by U.S. officials and eight people were separated from family members they traveled with who were not their biological children, but for whom they were the primary guardian (such as younger minor siblings or nieces and nephews). Asylum seekers reported that U.S. border officials also deceived and actively provided false information to them, such as telling people they were being reunited with family members while actually separating them.
These accounts reflect how the Title 42 order both directly and indirectly separated families without considering the best interests of the child during the separation process, increasing the trauma and vulnerability of family members. Family support is a critical resilience factor for children and separations have been associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes.
After being expelled across the U.S.-Mexico border, asylum seekers interviewed by PHR reported that they had been assaulted, kidnapped, extorted, and subjected to physical and sexual violence in Mexico. Interviewees reported that they did not have access to state protection from Mexican authorities, and several were even robbed or extorted by Mexican authorities after they were expelled from the United States.
"U.S. policy is ensnaring people in a deadly dilemma, where they are unsafe in their home country, unsafe in Mexico, and yet unable to seek safety at the U.S. border," said Michele Heisler, MD, MPA, report co-author, medical director at PHR, and professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan. "From a public health perspective, the Title 42 order was junk science from the moment it began. Rather than protect anyone's health, these expulsions accelerate a health and human rights emergency in Mexican border cities.
"Since the beginning of the pandemic and with the rise of new COVID-19 variants, the best way to protect public health remains vaccines, masking, and social distancing - not a targeted and unscientific ban on asylum seekers," said Dr. Heisler.
A letter from public health experts, including Dr. Heisler, to the Biden administration in July 2021 reiterated that the latest scientific knowledge regarding transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19 did not support expulsion as a public health measure, and that the order undermined trust in the CDC itself as a scientific body.
"The United States has the means and the know-how to process asylum seekers safely at the border and to welcome them with dignity, but every day the Biden administration instead chooses to condemn people to kidnappings, extortion, and violence in northern Mexico," said Cynthia Pompa, report co-author and asylum program officer at PHR. "Asylum seekers told us searing accounts of being separated from family members, brutalized by U.S. officials, and abused by Mexican authorities. Title 42 expulsions are nothing short of a human rights catastrophe and, by continuing them, the Biden administration is responsible for devastating harms to children and adults who are fleeing persecution."
"U.S. officials actively deceived people about their expulsion and family separation, while denying them access to basic information, such as where they were being transported, where their family members were, and what was happening to them," said Kathryn Hampton, report co-author and senior asylum officer at PHR. "Title 42 expulsions are a flagrant violation of people's rights under both the U.S. Constitution and multiple international treaties. With each passing day, the Biden administration is trampling on its professed commitment to science-based policymaking and a humane immigration system. The administration must stop playing politics and start saving lives: Revoke the Title 42 order now."
"Our findings make it clear that the Biden administration's recent announcement that it will expedite removal of some asylum-seeking families from the United States without a hearing in front of a judge will only increase the vulnerability and risks of harm for children and adults. This change will result in wrongful removals and undermines efforts to create a humane, safe, rights-respecting asylum system," said Hampton.
PHR is calling on the Biden administration and the CDC to immediately nullify the Title 42 expulsion order and restore access to asylum at the border by working with public health experts to ensure that border COVID-19 screening guidelines are implemented in line with scientific evidence and U.S. asylum laws and treaties. The PHR report provides detailed recommendations for the CDC, Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Congress, and government of Mexico to safeguard the health and human rights of people who seek asylum in the United States.
Read the full report here.
PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical duties, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human rights violations and work to stop them. PHR mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and promotes the right to health for all.
"He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump."
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of "cowardice" for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro's ouster, declaring that "we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime."
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was "complicated," adding that it was "for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken."
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that "it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal."
"It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious," Corbyn wrote. "It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high."
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States."
The UK, according to the government's foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the "work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US."
Corbyn argued that the government's approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
"Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States," Corbyn wrote. "Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law."
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," said Sen. Ed Markey.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which helped fund NPR, PBS, and many local public television and radio outlets—announced Monday that its board of directors has voted to dissolve the 58-year-old private nonprofit, a move one Democratic US senator blamed on Republican efforts to destroy the venerable American institution.
CPB said in a statement that Sunday's board of directors vote "follows Congress’ rescission of all of CPB’s federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended."
Patricia Harrison, CPB's president and CEO, said Monday that "for more than half a century, CPB existed to ensure that all Americans—regardless of geography, income, or background—had access to trusted news, educational programming, and local storytelling."
"When the [Trump] administration and Congress rescinded federal funding, our board faced a profound responsibility: CPB’s final act would be to protect the integrity of the public media system and the democratic values by dissolving, rather than allowing the organization to remain defunded and vulnerable to additional attacks," Harrison added.
CPB board chair Ruby Calvert said: “What has happened to public media is devastating. After nearly six decades of innovative, educational public television and radio service, Congress eliminated all funding for CPB, leaving the board with no way to continue the organization or support the public media system that depends on it."
"Yet, even in this moment, I am convinced that public media will survive, and that a new Congress will address public media’s role in our country because it is critical to our children's education, our history, culture, and democracy to do so," Calvert added.
The dissolution of CPB won't end NPR, PBS, or other public media outlets—which are overwhelmingly funded via contributions by private donors and by viewers and listeners.
President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and conservative advocacy groups—including the Heritage Foundation, which led work on Project 2025, the right-wing roadmap for remaking the federal government whose agenda includes stripping CPB funding—argue that NPR, PBS and other public outlets have become too "woke" and liberally "biased." In May, Trump signed an executive order calling for an end to taxpayer support for CPB-funded media.
Critics counter that Republican attacks on CPB have little to do with ensuring balanced coverage and fiscal responsibility and more to do with punishing media outlets that are critical of Trump and his policies.
"The dissolution of CPB is a direct result of Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican allies' reckless crusade to destroy public broadcasting and control what Americans read, hear, and see," US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Monday.
“Today’s decision to dissolve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting marks a grave loss for the American public," Markey continued. "For generations, CPB helped ensure access to trusted news, quality children’s programming, local storytelling, and vital emergency information for millions of people in Massachusetts and across the country."
"CPB nurtured and developed our public broadcasting system, which is truly the crown jewel of America’s media mix," he added. “This fight is not over. I will continue to fight for public media and oppose authoritarian efforts to shut down dissent, threaten journalists, and undermine free speech in the United States of America.”
Free press defenders also lamented CPB's imminent dissolution, as well as consolidation in the corporate mainstream media.
"Meanwhile," said human rights attorney Qasim Rashid on Bluesky, "billionaires continue to buy up major legacy media to prevent criticism of Trump."
"This ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations," warned the American Academy of Pediatrics president.
Leading US medical groups were among the critics who forcefully condemned the Trump administration's Monday overhaul of federal vaccine recommendations for every child in the country.
Doctors and public health advocates have been warning of such changes since the US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nearly a year ago.
Last month, in a presidential memorandum, Trump directed Kennedy and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O'Neill, who is also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "to review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations."
HHS said in a Monday statement that "after consulting with health ministries of peer nations, considering the assessment's findings, and reviewing the decision memo" presented by National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, O'Neill "formally accepted the recommendations and directed the CDC to move forward with implementation."
O'Neill claimed that "the data support a more focused schedule" and the HHS secretary said that "after an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the US childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent," but leading experts pushed back against their framing.
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision."
Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, an American Medical Association trustee, said in a statement that the AMA "is deeply concerned by recent changes to the childhood immunization schedule that affects the health and safety of millions of children. Vaccination policy has long been guided by a rigorous, transparent scientific process grounded in decades of evidence showing that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving."
“Changes of this magnitude require careful review, expert and public input, and clear scientific justification. That level of rigor and transparency was not part of this decision," she continued. "When long-standing recommendations are altered without a robust, evidence-based process, it undermines public trust and puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease."
"The scientific evidence remains unchanged, and the AMA supports continued access to childhood immunizations recommended by national medical specialty societies," the doctor added. "We urge federal health leaders to recommit to a transparent, evidence-based process that puts children's health and safety first and reflects the realities of our nation's disease burden."
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) President Dr. Andrew D. Racine was similarly critical of the "dangerous and unnecessary" move, stressing that "the long-standing, evidence-based approach that has guided the US immunization review and recommendation process remains the best way to keep children healthy and protect against health complications and hospitalizations."
As Racine explained:
Said to be modeled in part after Denmark's approach, the new recommendations issued today by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no longer recommend routine immunization for many diseases with known impacts on America's children, such as hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, and meningococcal disease. AAP continues to recommend that children be immunized against these diseases, and for good reason; thanks to widespread childhood immunizations, the United States has fewer pediatric hospitalizations and fewer children facing serious health challenges than we would without this community protection.
The United States is not Denmark, and there is no reason to impose the Danish immunization schedule on America's families. America is a unique country, and Denmark's population, public health infrastructure, and disease-risk differ greatly from our own.
At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations. This is no way to make our country healthier.
The doctor urged parents who "have questions about vaccines or anything else" to speak with their pediatricians and pledged that the AAP "will continue to stand up for children, just as we have done for the past 95 years."
Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Health Research Group director at the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, also slammed Kennedy and his deputies for starting out "2026 by escalating and accelerating their mindless assault on the childhood and adolescent immunization schedule."
"Extreme and arbitrary changes to the childhood vaccination schedule without full public discussion and scientific and evidence-based vetting put children and families at risk and undermine public health," Steinbrook said. "The uncalled-for changes are likely to further erode trust in vaccines and decrease immunization rates, rather than increase confidence or boost vaccine uptake, as federal health officials assert. Once again, medical professional societies and states must act to prevent suffering and death from preventable diseases."
As the Associated Press noted Monday: "States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration's guidance on vaccines."
Lawrence Gostin, founding chair of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law Georgetown University, predicted that "red states will mostly follow HHS guidance. Blue states will certainly keep the current schedule. We'll see a checkerboard of different rules across America. Infectious diseases will surge as pathogens don't respect state borders."
Ripping the CDC's move as "reckless and lawless," Gostin added that "RFK Jr. is plunging the nation into uncertainty and confusion. Will pharmacies and pediatricians offer vaccines without clear recommendations? Will insurers cover vaccines? Will school boards worry about liability? Needless hospitalizations and deaths are all but certain to occur."