On Friday, the US Supreme Court agreed to consider President Donald Trump's executive order banning asylum requests at the southern border, one of the pillars of the Republican president's wide-ranging campaign to tighten immigration restrictions.
The Trump administration is seeking to overturn lower court rulings, which deemed the executive order banning asylum applications illegal.
Federal law gives people the right to seek asylum if they fear persecution in their home countries, regardless of how they entered the United States. At the same time, the law also gives the executive authority the power to decide whether or not to grant people asylum.
According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration argues that it has the authority to flatly reject asylum claims for immigrants covered by the executive order, and that it should not be obligated to accept requests that are scheduled to be rejected.
Federal government lawyers said years-long processing times for asylum applications had previously contributed to a large influx of migrants to the southern border, many of whom were allowed to enter the country and remain there while waiting for their claims to be processed.
On the other hand, immigration lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigrant Justice Center counter that border crossings had already begun to decline before Trump took office.
They say Trump's executive order represents an attempt to unilaterally undermine legal guarantees aimed at protecting people fleeing dangers in their countries of origin.
Senator Chris Van Hollen decided to compete with his colleague Chuck Schumer for the position of leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, in what portends an unprecedented confrontation that could reshape the future course of the party after his landslide victory in the midterm congressional elections. Van Hollen, a senator from Maryland, announced on Thursday his intention to run against Schumer, considering that voters have given their Democratic Party a mandate for change in Congress.
This is the first time a competition has emerged for this position in decades, evidence of divisions within the party over its political identity, strategy and relationship with progressive voters.
Van Hollen (67 years old) said, “In this election, the American people demanded change. “They demanded an abandonment of Donald Trump’s disastrous policies, and even more importantly, an abandonment of a status quo that does not advance the interests of the working class.” He considered that Democrats need new leadership to face the current challenges.
This challenge pits Van Hollen against Schumer (75 years old), who is from New York and has led Democrats in the Senate since 2017. Leadership elections are expected to be held via secret ballot in early December, giving senators only a few weeks to determine who will lead the party’s agenda when the new Congress convenes on January 3.
Van Hollen's announcement comes after weeks of mounting speculation about Schumer's political future, amid debate over whether he is still the best suited person to lead the party in the Senate. Although Schumer helped lead Democrats through a successful election cycle, dissatisfaction with his leadership still exists among some segments of the progressive base.
Much of this discontent dates back to 2025, when Schumer backed a Republican-backed government funding bill, angering Democrats who were calling for stronger resistance to President Trump's program.
Criticisms also extended to include Schumer's approach to foreign policy, especially his positions on Israel, as well as concerns about the influence of wealthy donors and influential political interests in the Democrats' decision-making process.
Van Hollen increasingly emerged as a potential vehicle for this discontent. Although he previously held influential positions in the leadership of the Democratic Party in Congress, he has become more closely associated with the progressive wing of the party in recent years.
His decision to run for reelection came in response to calls from activists and freshman senators who argued that Democrats should not automatically return Schumer to the leadership position without considering alternatives.
Between Schumer and Van Hollen
Schumer responded to the challenge, stressing that his leadership has prepared Democrats for success, and that the party should build on its recent electoral achievements instead of embarking on a leadership transition that might cause turmoil. “I think I will be elected majority leader,” he said.
His supporters believe that Schumer is credited with helping Democrats secure a large majority in the Senate in the recent elections. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine provided a strong defense of Schumer. He asked about the justifications for replacing the leader after an electoral victory: “Why would you dismiss the manager when you had just won the world championship?” Senator-elect Sherrod Brown of Ohio also expressed his support for Schumer. Other Democrats declared their public support for him. This support list includes John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, and Brian Schatz of Hawaii.
However, Van Hollen's nomination has attracted the attention of progressives who believe that the Democratic Party should reconsider its political strategy after years of internal disputes.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders was among the prominent voices calling for new leadership. He argued that the party should show a stronger commitment to working Americans, and push back against political and economic interests that he believes have exerted undue influence over the government.
Speaking alongside Democratic Senator Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, Sanders emphasized the importance of a leadership change, although he did not announce his formal endorsement of Van Hollen at the time.
As for Senator-elect Abdul Rahman Al-Sayyed from Michigan, he was more frank. He announced his support for Van Hollen, describing him as a leader capable of bringing courage and experience to the Democratic bloc.
A number of newly elected Democrats also expressed reservations about supporting Schumer, including Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota.
This divergence of opinions suggests that the leadership competition goes beyond just personal differences. It reflects differences over how Democrats will exploit their new majority in the Senate, how aggressively they will confront Trump, and whether the party should embrace populist economic rhetoric. Van Hollen's supporters believe that experience makes him a trustworthy alternative to Schumer.
If this support continues, it will provide his campaign with an important springboard, although he will need much more support to defeat Schumer. With the majority expected to include at least 55 Democrats, the party will have greater influence in allocating committees, legislation, investigations, and the overall congressional agenda. The next majority leader will be responsible for coordinating the party's response to Trump's policies, while setting legislative priorities that appeal to voters across the country.
Schumer's victory, if it occurs, will demonstrate that the current president still enjoys the trust of a majority of his colleagues, despite criticism from progressive activists and some newly elected senators.
As for Van Hollen's victory, it will represent an important political shift. It will show that discontent with Schumer has turned into a movement capable of changing the party's leadership, which could strengthen progressive Democrats' influence over the Senate's legislative priorities.
