Posts by Newspaper Staff

The Trump administration has released more than 13,000 inadmissible noncitizens into the U.S. in the first four full months of his administration who arrived at ports of entries (POEs) nationwide, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data evaluated by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan organization founded at Syracuse University.
The data includes case-by-case CBP Office of Field Operations data reported at POEs nationwide in records TRAC obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.
It excludes illegal border crossers reported by Border Patrol who were apprehended or encountered between ports of entry. It also excludes gotaways, those who evaded capture and illegally entered the country, also deemed inadmissible.
The Immigration and Nationality Act defines “inadmissible aliens” as “An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General …” The law includes multiple categories and definitions related to public health and a range of crimes and circumstances, including national security and terrorism designations and associations.
“Noncitizens arriving at the United States by land, air and sea continue to seek entry to this country without adequate papers,” the TRAC report states. Since President Donald Trump was sworn into office in January and through the end of May, 50,071 foreign nationals “arrived at ports of entry and were initially found ‘inadmissible,’” according to the data published by TRAC.
“The Trump administration has not stopped all noncitizens without papers from entry,” the TRAC report states. As of the end of May 2025, 10,673 inadmissibles were paroled into the U.S.; an additional 2,351 were issued Notices to Appear before an immigration judge and allowed entry by CBP Office of Field Operations officers, TRAC says, according to the data it obtained.
The greatest number of inadmissables were released into the country by CBP OFO officers in San Diego and San Francisco; CBP OFO officers who issued the greatest number of NTAs were at Laredo and New York POEs, TRAC found.
When evaluating data from February through May, the greatest number of foreign nationals reported by CBP OFO officers at POEs were citizens of Mexico, Cuba, Philippines, Haiti, Canada, Venezuela, Ukraine, India, China, Honduras, Russia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia and El Salvador, according to the TRAC analysis.
The data includes everyone OFO determined was inadmissible and categorizes the reasons OFO gave for each designation and how they were processed. CBP provided data for most periods, TRAC said, however “CBP recently refused to release” some data it requested, and is “contesting this unlawful withholding.”
The data is categorized by country of origin, month and year, OFO location/POE, inadmissible entry details, gender, age, and other categories and subcategories.
Parole data refers to humanitarian, public interest or parole programs specific to countries.
Each category is searchable using different drop-down menus.
For example, in March 2025, 20,860 inadmissables were reported by CBP OFO officers nationwide. Among them, the greatest number were Mexicans (4,137), followed by Philippinos (2,693), Canadians (2,662), Indians (1,933) and Chinese (1,875).
Among them, the greatest number of inadmissibles released into the country in March were Mexican nationals: 1,548 were paroled into the country; 88 were released given NTAs to appear before a federal immigration judge, according to the data.
The large numbers of inadmissible Philippine, Indian and Chinese nationals are attributed to crew members of ships who didn’t have proper papers. Only 44 Philippino, 71 Indian and 76 Chinese nationals were paroled into the U.S. that month.
Of the 2,662 inadmissible Canadians, 93 were paroled into the U.S.; five were given NTAs. The majority, 2,481, were withdrawals, according to the data.
CBP OFO officers work at more than 300 POEs nationwide at international airports, land and seaports.
TRAC data includes more than 6 million foreign nationals designated as inadmissible by CBP OFO officers at POEs nationwide, from October 2011 to May 2025.

After more than 26 hours of debate and a record number of vote-a-rama amendments, the U.S. Senate narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ Tuesday.
The massive budget reconciliation bill hikes the debt ceiling by $5 trillion and implements President Donald Trump’s tax, energy, border security and defense agenda. But the cost and complexity of the bill required Vice President J.D. Vance to break the chamber tie with Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, voting no.
By permanently extending the bulk of the 2017 tax cuts – rather than extending them for only 10 years, as the House originally did — the Senate-amended OBBBA would add roughly $4 trillion to the national debt when accounting for interest by fiscal year 2034.
Republican leaders have spent weeks trying to rally their constituents around the massive bill, formerly titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act but stripped of its name via a last-minute procedural complaint by Senate Democrats. While fiscal hawks objected to the bill’s projected impact on the debt and deficit, other Republicans raised concerns about the $1.7 trillion in savings found by House and Senate committees.
The majority of the bill’s offsets came from Medicaid reforms, with the House imposing work requirements on able-bodied adults and the Senate lowering the Medicaid provider tax cap from 6% to 3.5%. Some GOP senators worried this could cause rural hospitals to close, so a provision creating a $50 billion hospital stabilization fund was included.
Another 11th-hour amendment, introduced by U.S. Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., passed in a 99-1 vote and stripped a provision that would have banned states from regulating AI for the next ten years or risk losing federal funds.
The Senate also changed the House’s plan to quickly phase out most Inflation Reduction Act subsidies and gave states with high SNAP payment error rates more time to fix their rates before incurring the penalties outlined in the bill.
Most notably, the Senate changed budget reconciliation precedent by operating under current policy baseline, an accounting method that treats tax cut extensions as if it costs nothing. As a result, the Senate waived the usual requirement to find additional budgetary offsets in order to codify the tax provisions of the bill.
Dozens of House Republicans had already warned they will reject the bill if it returns with drastic Senate revisions, especially the never-before use of current policy baseline to calculate revenue loss from tax cuts. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had personally promised holdouts that tax cuts would be paired dollar-for-dollar with spending reductions or economic growth.
Since the Senate’s final product upended that compromise, Johnson and House committees will likely have to revise the Senate’s revisions to get enough lower chamber votes, which in turn will require another Senate vote before the bill can reach Trump’s desk.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a deficit-concerned holdout who eventually voted in favor, called the bill “a step forward” after its Senate passage but reiterated that “there is still a long way to go.”

Bottom line up front: The economic data this week tells a story of resilient consumers facing mounting headwinds. Inflation pressures remain somewhat contained – perhaps due to emerging cracks in consumer finances.
What’s Behind the Latest PCE Numbers
The PCE price index rose 0.14% for the month, putting inflation at a 1.7% annualized rate, with core PCE posting respective readings of 0.18% and 2.2%.
Energy prices fell 4.6% year-over-year but even without the decline, inflation is still running just slightly above the Fed’s 2% target.
The income and spending dynamics reveal an important story. Personal income declined 0.4% in May while spending fell 0.1%. Recent months saw elevated income growth thanks to policy changes – Social Security Fairness Act retroactive payments and Emergency Commodity Assistance Program payouts to farmers provided temporary support. But that support will soon wane. At the same time, private sector wage growth continues to slow.
The Student Debt Crisis Hits Hard
Another significant development for consumer spending power is the return of student loan delinquencies. After a 43-month payment pause, nearly one in four student loan borrowers (23.7%) were behind on their student loans in the first quarter of 2025.
The scale of this change is unprecedented. According to the Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit published by the New York Fed, more than 2.2 million newly delinquent borrowers have seen their credit plunge by over 100 points, while more than 1 million have experienced drops of at least 150 points.
This isn’t just about student loans – it’s about access to consumer credit going forward. An estimated 2.4 million delinquent borrowers previously had credit scores above 620, meaning they qualified for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards before these delinquencies hit their reports. Many no longer do.
The timing couldn’t be worse. These borrowers are predominantly millennials and Gen Z near or at peak home-buying age, facing an already brutal housing affordability crisis. When credit access tightens for millions of consumers simultaneously, spending patterns shift – and not in ways that support robust economic growth.
Labor Market Signals Point to Weakness Ahead
The frozen labor market adds another layer of concern for consumer spending. Private sector wage growth continues slowing as unemployment duration rises and job seekers give up. This creates a feedback loop: weaker labor market conditions reduce workers’ bargaining power, which slows wage growth and ultimately constrains spending.
Housing’s Negative Wealth Effect
The expected decline in home values represents another headwind for consumer spending going forward. For homeowners who’ve relied on housing wealth gains to borrow and spend, a negative wealth effect could cause them to curtail spending.
What’s Next?
Next week brings construction spending and auto sales data – both expected to show weakness. But the main event is the jobs report, where employment growth is expected to slow further and the unemployment rate could nudge higher.

A nonprofit religious freedom organization is providing tools for parents to help them opt out of public-school LGBTQ+ instruction, curriculum and materials after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Friday.
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Maryland school board’s introduction of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” books and curriculum “combined with its no-opt-out policy, burdens the parents’ right to the free exercise of religion.”
The school board previously allowed for an opt-out policy but reversed it, arguing it was too difficult to manage, The Center Square reported.
Because the school board refused to allow an opt-out option, the court held that if it didn’t issue an injunction to halt the school district’s policy, parents would be forced to keep making the same choice. They would be forced to “either risk their child’s exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services,” the ruling states. “As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents’ religious exercise, and ‘[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”
The court majority said that “a government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill.”
It also emphasized that parental rights and religious freedom were protected by the Constitution, arguing, “The practice of educating one’s children in one’s religious beliefs, like all religious acts and practices, receives a generous measure of protection from the Constitution.”
In response, California-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom, which has been embroiled in lawsuits over parental rights and religious freedom for years, created a free, legal opt-out form for parents to use nationwide.
The form is customizable, allowing parents to “request that their child be exempt from exposure to any instruction or materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, or other related topics contrary to their faith,” it says. This includes opting out of “instruction, curriculum, or discussions related to gender identity, gender theory, sexual orientation, or any LGBTQ+-themed materials that conflict with their religious beliefs,” it says.
“Today’s decision is a victory for religious freedom and the rights of parents. A parent should be treated by a school as a respected partner, not as someone to ignore or alienate from his/her own child’s education,” Advocates for Faith & Freedom president and chief counsel Robert Tyler said. “The Supreme Court’s opinion sends a two-part message to schools across the country: 1) sincere religious beliefs cannot be ignored and 2) a parent has every right to know what is going on with his/her child at school.”
The letter also includes affirmations of what the parents and family believe, including that biological sex is immutable, defined by God, and “it is sinful and harmful to teach children that a person can change their biological sex and gender.”
The letter defines what the it considers objectional materials and clarifies that no one at a child’s school, including employees and third parties, are allowed “to introduce, expose, teach or discuss [with the child] any book or curriculum that contains ‘objectional materials.’”
It notes that parents have a First Amendment right to hold their religious beliefs and educate their children and anyone at the school who violates it and the Supreme Court injunction will face legal consequences.
“For too long, public schools have treated parental rights and the free exercise of religion as an ‘empty promise,’” Advocates for Faith & Freedom said.
It also notes that the ruling “does not mark the end of the issue” and that parents should expect potentially ongoing challenges to their First Amendment rights.
“Public schools can be expected to try to limit the Supreme Court’s holding and will find new ways to assert its power and to indoctrinate children,” it said, adding that it remained committed to preserving the rights of parents, children and families.