- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 America’s Forgotten Allies
🌊 America’s Forgotten Allies
Deportations, negotiations, and Afghans left behind
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Once a week over the next month, we are giving away a free year of Roca Premium. To be eligible, you have to be a subscriber or signed up for a free trial. If you already subscribe, you’re automatically entered. If not, enter today by starting a free trial!
By Max Frost
The news isn’t always interesting. We’d often pay not to read about it, let alone think about it on a Saturday morning.
But once in a while, it’s the opposite – and events raise interesting questions about our societies, values, and systems.
Such was the news this week.
Let’s start on Sunday: News breaks that ICE agents have arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of last spring’s Columbia protests. Authorities say Khalil’s statements amount to support for terrorism and he’s therefore eligible for deportation, despite having a green card. Protests break out across the country. A fierce battle over free speech, protest, and Israel erupts.
On Monday, Ukrainian and American officials meet in Saudi Arabia – their first high-level meeting since Trump and Zelensky’s Oval Office spat. Ukraine agrees to the US’ ceasefire plan. Trump is happy and restarts military aid. It can’t come soon enough: Throughout the week, Russia is making progress on evicting Ukrainian troops from its territory. The US takes the ceasefire plan to Russia. But, perhaps feeling their battlefield position strengthening, the Russians reject it. Too pro-Ukraine, they say.
Other stories are breaking, too. In Romania, the court upholds a ban on Calin Georgecu’s presidential campaign. While polls show Georgescu is likely the country’s most popular politician, the authorities say he’s a Russia-backed extremist. Legions of his supporters disagree and hit the streets. Conservatives around the world look at what’s happening and see anti-Russian liberals crushing democracy in the name of saving it.
In the US, conservatives see liberals waging terrorism. Or at least Trump does: While hosting a Tesla event at the White House, he says that people who vandalize Teslas or Tesla dealerships – as many anti-Musk demonstrators are – may be labeled domestic terrorists. It’s not a political thing, Trump says, he’d do so for any “great American company.”
Meanwhile, the White House pulls Dave Weldon’s CDC nomination; the US and EU tariff each other’s alcohol; and the UK begins its own DOGE-esque scheme.
So lots to discuss. But there’s one story in particular we wouldn’t want you to miss and that’s this: The battle around the ~200,000 Afghans who aided the US but are now stuck in their country, moving from house to house as they try to evade the Taliban.
Last week, it emerged that Trump was considering banning all Afghans – including military interpreters and aides – from coming to the US. This week, Republican congressmembers began pushing to eliminate funding to bring them here.
In today’s deep dive, we examine this story, the arguments for and against bringing them here, and interview an interpreter about life on the run from the Taliban.
Sardar Khan in Afghanistan, 2009
By Barratt Dewey
The DVD was entitled “Afghans working for infidels” and distributed through Afghan bazaars. Highlighted in the footage were shots of Afghans, including Sardar Khan, at a Christmas party with American soldiers.
The Taliban wanted these Afghans dead. To do that, they set up checkpoints between villages and cities across Afghanistan and passed out “kill lists.” If a passenger’s name was on the list and the car was stopped, they were executed. Khan’s name was on the list.
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
We hope you all enjoyed and are, as always, eager to hear your feedback. Lots to yesterday’s piece on getting rid of the Department of Education, which we feature below.
In case you missed any of this week’s stories, here they are:
Now, those replies.
Kris from Illinois wrote:
The fact that every state has their own Dept of Ed makes it seem redundant. I’m sure that there are states that probably need help, but for it to be used specifically as the Fed Dept says, wouldn’t be the best use of funds. The mandated teaching methods are ridiculous. I’ve seen so many teachers struggle to change the way they teach just to satisfy directives, and go against their successful methods, only to have students fall behind or test poorly. I live in the great state of IL, where the state will do whatever they want to anyway and are constantly putting more restrictions not only on state educators and state employees, but on the private sector as well. There is so much waste on the “watch dog” agencies to keep every school district accountable, that they’d be able to really make a difference if those were cut. If only 25% of the Dept of Ed spending went to state and local governments, where did the rest go? I would assume that there are some very high salaries in that Dept, and they probably all live in those wealthy counties around DC!
Pam wrote:
Thanks for the article. One key concern I have, which I don’t believe you mentioned, is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Department of Education was established with a limited but critical role—primarily to support disenfranchised students. Before the passage of what is now IDEA, most children with disabilities were placed in institutions rather than given the opportunity to receive an education in public schools.
It would be tragic to lose federal funding that ensures students with disabilities can be integrated into mainstream classrooms. That said, IDEA is often criticized as an unfunded mandate—meaning the federal government imposes strict regulations (ostensibly to protect vulnerable students) but fails to provide sufficient funding, leaving states to shoulder the financial burden. While it’s worth discussing whether IDEA needs to remain under the Department of Education, my concern is that eliminating the department could put this essential education and civil rights program at risk.
Dwight from New York wrote:
I am a school board member of 9 years and I am in favor of eliminating the ED. Most of my governmental interactions (99%) are with my Stated Dept. of Ed where the "real" regulatory work happens. Rarely does the Federal ED provide any direct benefit, and in fact, provides more direct "detriments" with constant rule changes that strain staff and draw away students. I'm no fan of my own State Dept. of Ed either since they have stripped local control away from schools over the years, but at least we can advocate and partner with them directly on programming, curriculum, and resources. The data for student outcomes is dismal all around and I would like to see a return to local innovation and adjustments to address student achievements.
That’s all for today. See you tomorrow.
–Max and Max