Genesis 15:18 Is Not a Modern Land Deed — And It Cannot Justify Territorial Claims Today

Genesis 15:18 is sometimes invoked as though it settles one of the most complicated political disputes in the world:

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.’”

But quoting this passage does not establish that the modern State of Israel possesses a permanent divine title to every piece of territory described in Genesis.

Historically, politically, legally and — for Christians especially — theologically, that argument requires several enormous leaps that the verse itself does not make.

Genesis 15 is Scripture. It is not a twenty-first-century property deed.

The covenant was made with Abraham, not the modern State of Israel

The first problem is basic chronology.

Genesis describes a covenant between God and Abraham in the ancient Near East. The modern State of Israel was established thousands of years later, in 1948.

Those are not the same political entities.

The passage does not mention the State of Israel created in 1948. It does not establish its governmental boundaries. It does not describe international borders. It does not establish jurisdiction over Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Iraqis or Egyptians.

Turning Abraham directly into a modern nation-state skips thousands of years of history.

It also raises a question that is frequently ignored: Who exactly are Abraham’s “descendants”?

Abraham's descendants in the biblical tradition are not limited to one modern political population. Isaac descends from Abraham, but so does Ishmael. Abraham is also presented as the ancestor of additional peoples.

That alone should caution anyone against treating the phrase “your descendants” as though it were a modern legal description of citizenship or exclusive national sovereignty.

The Bible itself does not treat the land as an unlimited political blank check

Even within Scripture, the land is never presented as permission to ignore morality, justice or the rights of other human beings.

Leviticus 25:23 makes an extraordinary declaration:

“The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”

That dramatically changes the perspective.

Ultimately, according to the Bible, the land belongs to God.

The biblical prophets repeatedly condemn injustice by Israel itself. Possession of the land never meant that every action taken by Israel's rulers was automatically righteous simply because Israel had a covenant with God.

A covenant cannot logically be transformed into the proposition:

“Anything a government does to acquire or retain territory is justified because God promised the land thousands of years ago.”

The Bible never says that.

Christianity fundamentally broadens the Abrahamic promise

For Christians, the argument becomes even more difficult.

The New Testament does not establish a political program for recovering the territorial boundaries of Genesis 15.

Instead, it repeatedly expands the Abrahamic promise beyond ethnicity and geography.

Paul writes in Galatians 3:29:

“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

That is enormously important.

Paul does not tell Christians that Abraham's promise requires establishing political control from Egypt to the Euphrates. He identifies those who belong to Christ as heirs to Abraham's promise.

Romans 4 similarly describes Abraham as heir not merely of one geographical territory but of the “world.”

And Hebrews 11 takes the argument further.

Abraham lived in the promised land as a foreigner while looking forward to something greater. Hebrews says Abraham and the patriarchs desired a “better country — a heavenly one.”

The Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission makes this point explicitly when discussing Hebrews: the earthly promised land has a “provisional and incomplete character” and points ultimately toward a “heavenly homeland.” 

That is a radically different concept from using Genesis to draw modern military borders.

Christianity transformed a territorial expectation into something universal and ultimately eschatological.

Jesus did not command his followers to establish Abraham's borders.

The apostles did not campaign to establish them.

Paul did not demand them.

The early Church did not teach that Christians had a religious obligation to create a state extending to the Euphrates.

If Genesis 15:18 were intended as an eternal geopolitical mandate binding Christians, its near-complete absence as a territorial program in the New Testament would be extremely difficult to explain.

Even recognizing an enduring covenant does not produce modern borders

There is an important distinction here.

A Christian can believe that God's covenant with Abraham retains theological significance. A Christian can reject the idea that God abandoned the Jewish people. A person can recognize the Jewish people's ancient and profound historical connection to the land.

None of those propositions establishes that Genesis 15:18 functions as a modern title deed.

That conclusion has to be argued separately.

Even the Catholic Church's Pontifical Biblical Commission, while affirming the importance of Israel and the Hebrew Scriptures, explains that the New Testament gives the land promise a transformed and universalized significance rather than simply reproducing it as a territorial program. 

So saying “God's covenant remains significant” and saying “therefore this modern government owns this territory” are two entirely different statements.

A literal application creates an enormous problem

Consider what taking Genesis 15:18 as a modern territorial deed would actually mean.

The passage describes territory extending from the “river of Egypt” to the Euphrates.

The Euphrates runs through modern states far beyond Israel's internationally recognized territory.

If the verse establishes an enforceable political boundary today, then the argument cannot conveniently stop wherever modern political preference wants it to stop.

It would potentially implicate territory inhabited and governed by other peoples and states.

And once that principle is accepted, another question immediately follows:

Why would only this ancient religious territorial claim remain politically enforceable?

Human history is filled with peoples, kingdoms and religions possessing sacred accounts of ancestral territories.

Modern civilization cannot establish national borders by determining which population has the oldest religious text claiming that God gave its ancestors a particular piece of land.

That is precisely why contemporary sovereignty is governed through international law rather than competing interpretations of ancient scripture.

Genesis cannot override the rights of people living there today

This may be the most important distinction of all.

Whatever theological meaning someone gives Genesis 15, Palestinians living today are human beings with rights today.

Their rights do not disappear because of something written about Abraham thousands of years ago.

The International Court of Justice stated in its July 2024 advisory opinion that the Palestinian people possess a right to self-determination and that occupation cannot itself create sovereign title to territory. The Court also reaffirmed the international-law principle prohibiting acquisition of territory through force. 

The Court specifically concluded that Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territory merely because it exercises control over it. 

That legal conclusion does not determine anyone's theology.

It establishes something different:

Biblical theology and international sovereignty are separate questions.

No modern court has to determine whether God actually spoke to Abraham before deciding whether Palestinians possess rights.

And it should not.

Scripture cannot become a loophole around international law

Imagine the precedent created by saying otherwise.

Suppose every nation could reach thousands of years into its religious history, identify territory once promised to or controlled by its ancestors, and declare that modern borders no longer matter.

The international system would become impossible.

Historical connection matters.

Religious connection matters.

Archaeology matters.

Cultural identity matters.

But none of those things, standing alone, gives a modern government unlimited sovereignty over another population.

The same standard must apply to everyone.

Genesis 15:18 should be read as Scripture — not a real-estate document

Genesis 15:18 has enormous importance in Judaism and Christianity.

But respecting Scripture does not require turning Scripture into something it never purported to be: a modern deed recorded in an international land registry.

The passage describes God's covenant with Abraham within an ancient biblical narrative.

Christian theology subsequently expands Abraham's inheritance far beyond one strip of territory. Hebrews points toward a heavenly homeland. Paul extends Abrahamic inheritance to those who belong to Christ. Jesus establishes no territorial boundaries for his followers.

And modern international law recognizes the rights and self-determination of peoples presently inhabiting these territories rather than adjudicating sovereignty according to competing religious claims.

That leads to a distinction that should not be controversial:

A biblical promise can remain sacred without functioning as a modern territorial deed.

Believing that Abraham received a promise from God does not require believing that a government created thousands of years later possesses an unlimited right to territory from Egypt to the Euphrates.

It certainly does not mean that the rights of millions of people living there today cease to exist.

Genesis 15 belongs to the Bible.

It should not be turned into a blank check for modern territorial expansion.

Trump’s White House Media Ban Runs Headfirst Into the First Amendment

President Donald Trump has every right to criticize CNN, MS NOW and Politico. He can call their reporting unfair, inaccurate or biased. He can publicly challenge their stories and present evidence that he believes proves them wrong.

What the government cannot simply do, however, is punish journalists because it dislikes what they report.

That distinction is at the center of a major First Amendment confrontation after the Trump administration barred journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

On Saturday, journalists representing all three organizations were denied entry to the White House grounds, and their press credentials were confiscated or disabled, according to Reuters. The action followed Trump's announcement that he was banning the organizations because of what he characterized as "FAKE NEWS." Trump also indicated that additional news organizations could face similar treatment. 

This is not merely an argument about whether someone likes CNN, Politico, MS NOW or Donald Trump.

It is a constitutional question about whether the government can grant journalists access to an established White House press system and then withdraw that access because the president objects to their reporting.

Existing federal precedent creates serious constitutional problems for doing exactly that.

The First Amendment Doesn't Protect Only the Press a President Likes

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. Through constitutional doctrine developed over generations, those protections constrain the federal government more broadly.

That does not mean every journalist has an unlimited constitutional right to walk anywhere inside the White House.

The White House obviously has legitimate authority to protect the president, secure sensitive areas, control physical access and establish reasonable procedures for journalists.

But that isn't the end of the constitutional analysis.

Once the government establishes press facilities and a credentialing system, federal precedent limits its ability to decide who receives access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons.

That principle goes back decades.

In the landmark 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that White House press access could not be denied arbitrarily once the government had established press facilities for journalists.

The court also established procedural protections for journalists denied credentials, including notice of the reasons for the decision and an opportunity to respond.

That precedent remains extremely important today.

Trump's Own Explanation Could Be the Biggest Constitutional Problem

Perhaps the most significant part of this controversy is Trump's stated reason for imposing the ban.

Trump did not publicly frame the decision primarily as a Secret Service security matter or as a neutral limitation on the number of reporters who could fit inside a particular room.

Instead, he attacked the organizations' journalism.

Trump wrote that media outlets should not be able to continually report what he described as fiction and lies about his presidency and administration. He later told reporters that he was tired of what he considered "fake news." 

That distinction matters enormously under the First Amendment.

If a government official restricts access because of genuine security requirements or applies a neutral rule equally to journalists, that presents one constitutional question.

Punishing journalists because government officials dislike their reporting presents a very different one.

First Amendment attorneys quoted following the ban have characterized Trump's justification as viewpoint discrimination. Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said that once the White House permits journalists access, it cannot exclude particular journalists simply because officials dislike their reporting. 

We've Been Down This Road Before

There is also precedent involving Trump himself.

During Trump's first administration, the White House revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's press credential following a contentious White House news conference.

CNN sued.

A federal judge ordered the government to restore Acosta's credential. The White House ultimately restored his pass.

The administration also suspended the credentials of reporter Brian Karem. That dispute also resulted in litigation over the government's authority to remove a journalist's White House access.

More recently, the Trump administration restricted the Associated Press's access to certain presidential events after the AP continued referring to the Gulf of Mexico by that name rather than adopting the administration's "Gulf of America" terminology.

That produced another major First Amendment lawsuit.

A federal district judge ruled in 2025 that the government could not exclude AP journalists from otherwise available presidential press spaces because of the organization's viewpoint. The appeals process complicated the scope of that ruling, particularly regarding highly restricted spaces such as the Oval Office, and the litigation has continued. 

Importantly, the D.C. Circuit has reiterated that existing precedent prohibits viewpoint-based restrictions on White House press access in areas covered by that precedent. 

This Isn't About Defending CNN

That is the part of this controversy Americans across the political spectrum should understand.

You don't have to like CNN.

You don't have to trust Politico.

You don't have to watch MS NOW.

And you certainly don't have to agree with their reporting.

The constitutional issue is bigger than any of those organizations.

Imagine the same principle under a Democratic president.

Suppose that president announced that Fox News, Newsmax and conservative reporters would no longer be allowed into the White House because the president believed their stories were dishonest and unfair.

The constitutional question would be the same.

The First Amendment does not change depending on which party controls the White House or which news organization is being targeted.

The President Can Fight Bad Journalism With More Speech

Presidents are not powerless when they believe journalists publish inaccurate information.

They can challenge stories.

They can release documents.

They can hold press conferences.

They can demand corrections.

They can give interviews explaining their position.

They can criticize reporters publicly.

They can present their evidence directly to the American people.

And, where legally appropriate, individuals and organizations retain access to the courts.

What government officials face constitutional limits on doing is using governmental power to retaliate against speakers because of their viewpoints.

That principle protects conservatives, liberals and everyone in between.

A Constitutional Fight Is Now Taking Shape

CNN has called the White House action illegal. MS NOW and Politico have said they intend to defend their First Amendment rights. The White House Correspondents' Association has also called for the journalists' access to be restored. 

The specific September 2026 ban has not yet produced a final court judgment declaring it unconstitutional.

That qualification matters.

Courts, not commentators or presidents, ultimately decide the legal challenge before them.

But the existing precedent presents the administration with a serious constitutional obstacle: the government has substantially more authority to impose neutral security and logistical restrictions than it does to exclude journalists because officials object to what those journalists say or publish.

And Trump's publicly stated justification puts that issue squarely at the center of this controversy.

The First Amendment was never designed to protect only agreeable speech.

Its importance becomes clearest when the speech angers the people who currently possess governmental power.

That principle should remain the same regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

Records Complicate Claims in Dearborn Religious-Favoritism Lawsuit

DEARBORN, Mich. — A newly filed federal lawsuit accuses the City of Dearborn of favoring Islam by spending public money on Ramadan decorations while failing to provide comparable recognition for Christian and Jewish holidays.

But city spending records provide additional context to those allegations, showing Dearborn has spent substantially more on Christmas and broader holiday-related decorations and programming than on Ramadan displays.

Records show the city spent nearly $300,000 on Christmas and holiday-related items during a single year, compared with approximately $6,860 on Ramadan-related decorations over several years.

Based on those figures, the Christmas and holiday-related expenditures were more than 40 times the amount identified for Ramadan decorations.

The spending records are significant because the federal lawsuit filed Sept. 17 by Dearborn resident Margot Cleveland against the city and Mayor Abdullah Hammoud alleges that city officials used public money and property to recognize the Islamic holy month of Ramadan while denying comparable recognition to Christian and Jewish religious observances.

The American Freedom Law Center filed the civil rights lawsuit on Cleveland's behalf in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint alleges violations of the First and 14th Amendments and claims Cleveland faced retaliation after raising concerns about the city's practices.

According to the complaint, Dearborn spent about $1,500 on "Ramadan Kareem" banners and approximately $5,000 on a large illuminated crescent moon displayed on public property. The lawsuit also points to Ramadan-themed displays installed in subsequent years.

Cleveland contends she contacted city officials seeking comparable recognition for Christian and Jewish observances, including Easter and Passover, and did not receive the treatment she requested. The lawsuit argues the city's actions amount to unconstitutional religious favoritism.

Dearborn disputes the broader characterization that it discriminates among religions. The city has said it remains committed to treating residents equally and has described Dearborn as a diverse and welcoming community.

Public records and city activities also show Dearborn has recognized Christmas and other seasonal celebrations.

Dearborn has hosted and promoted Christmas and holiday events, including Christmas tree-lighting activities, holiday performances, Santa-related events and other seasonal programming.

The city's official 2025 holiday schedule included a Christmas tree lighting, Victorian Christmas Open House, Jingle Bell Bash, holiday performances and Skate with Santa, among other events.

Dearborn also installed a 32-foot Christmas tree at PEACE Park West in 2025 and held an official tree-lighting ceremony featuring thousands of lights, entertainment, food and other activities.

Historical records also show Dearborn has budgeted for both holiday and Ramadan lighting, rather than exclusively funding Ramadan displays.

Those records do not necessarily resolve the constitutional questions raised in Cleveland's lawsuit. The case focuses not simply on the total amount of money spent but on whether the city treated religious observances differently and whether Cleveland's requests for comparable recognition were handled in a constitutionally permissible manner.

However, the spending figures provide important context to the allegation that Dearborn has used taxpayer money to promote Islam while failing to provide comparable recognition for Christian holidays.

Based strictly on the expenditures identified in the records, Dearborn's Christmas and broader holiday spending substantially exceeds the amount spent on Ramadan decorations.

The lawsuit remains pending in federal court. Cleveland's allegations have not been proven, and the city will have an opportunity to respond to the claims as the case proceeds.

FORCED STERILIZATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN: A DARK AND DOCUMENTED CHAPTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY

  

Thousands of Native American women were sterilized through Indian Health Service facilities and government-contracted hospitals during the 1960s and 1970s, often under circumstances that failed to meet federal standards for informed consent.

The documented abuses represent one of the darkest chapters in the history of the relationship between the federal government and tribal nations. Nearly five decades later, questions remain about how many women were affected and whether the federal government ever fully accounted for the damage inflicted on Native families and communities.

A 1976 investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office, now known as the Government Accountability Office, examined sterilization practices in four of the Indian Health Service’s 12 regions: Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Phoenix.

Investigators identified 3,406 sterilization procedures performed on Native American women in those four regions between 1973 and 1976.

The investigation found widespread failures to follow federal regulations intended to protect patients. Although consent forms appeared in the medical records, most failed to satisfy Indian Health Service requirements. The forms frequently did not establish whether patients had been given enough information to understand the nature and permanent consequences of the procedures.

Investigators also discovered that women younger than 21 had been sterilized despite federal restrictions against performing the procedures on patients in that age group.

The GAO ultimately concluded that the four Indian Health Service regions it examined were generally not complying with federal sterilization regulations.

Consent forms failed to guarantee informed decisions

The presence of a patient’s signature did not necessarily establish that she had provided meaningful consent.

True informed consent requires medical professionals to explain the purpose of a procedure, its risks, available alternatives and whether its effects will be permanent. Patients must also be given an opportunity to make the decision without pressure, intimidation or deception.

Native American women later described being pressured into accepting sterilization, misled about whether the procedure could be reversed or inadequately informed about what was being done to them. Some reportedly did not learn that they had been sterilized until they later attempted to have another child.

Those accounts raised serious questions about whether women understood the consent forms they signed and whether the decisions were made voluntarily.

Sterilization is an irreversible medical procedure that can permanently eliminate a woman’s ability to have children. Any failure to provide complete and understandable information therefore carries consequences extending far beyond an ordinary administrative error.

Federal investigation had serious limitations

The GAO report confirmed significant regulatory violations, but it did not establish the full national scope of the sterilization abuses.

Investigators examined only four of the Indian Health Service’s 12 regions and reviewed records covering a period of approximately three years. They did not conduct direct interviews with the women who underwent the procedures.

As a result, the 3,406 procedures identified by the investigation cannot be considered a complete count of all Native American women sterilized through the federal healthcare system.

Dr. Connie Redbird Uri, a Choctaw and Cherokee physician who investigated the issue during the 1970s, alleged that as many as one-quarter of Native American women of childbearing age had been sterilized in certain communities.

Uri interviewed women who said they had been pressured, misled or subjected to sterilization without understanding that the procedure was permanent. Her findings helped generate public attention and contributed to demands for a federal investigation.

The one-quarter estimate continues to be cited in historical accounts, although the exact national percentage remains disputed. Incomplete records, the narrow scope of the federal investigation and the government’s failure to interview affected patients made it impossible to determine the total number conclusively.

That uncertainty, however, does not erase what federal investigators documented: thousands of sterilization procedures, widespread failures to follow consent requirements and operations performed on underage patients despite federal restrictions.

Abuse occurred within a larger historical pattern

The sterilizations did not occur in isolation.

For generations, Native American communities had been subjected to federal policies involving forced relocation, broken treaties, the seizure of tribal land and the removal of Native children to government-supported boarding schools.

At those schools, children were frequently separated from their families, prohibited from speaking their languages and pressured to abandon their religious and cultural identities.

By the 1970s, many Native families depended on the Indian Health Service for medical treatment. That dependence created a substantial imbalance of power between patients and the federal institutions responsible for providing their care.

Women who had limited access to other hospitals or physicians could not simply seek treatment elsewhere when confronted with pressure or inadequate information.

The sterilization controversy therefore became part of a broader history of government policies that weakened Native families, restricted tribal autonomy and attempted to control Indigenous populations.

Federal investigators established that thousands of sterilizations occurred in just four Indian Health Service regions. Most of the consent documentation reviewed failed to meet federal requirements. Women younger than 21 were sterilized despite restrictions, and investigators never interviewed the patients whose experiences were at the center of the controversy.

The government’s limited examination left major questions unanswered about how many women were affected, what they were told and how many procedures were performed without genuine consent.

Consequences extended across generations

For the women involved, sterilization was not simply a medical procedure recorded in a government file.

Some lost the ability to have the families they wanted. Others lived with emotional trauma after discovering that a permanent decision had been made without their complete knowledge or voluntary agreement.

The effects also extended into tribal communities, where family, ancestry and cultural continuity carry profound importance.

Every sterilization performed without genuine informed consent represented more than a violation of medical regulations. It affected a woman’s personal future and potentially altered the future of her family and community.

The scandal also damaged trust between Native Americans and government healthcare institutions. That distrust did not disappear when federal regulations were strengthened or when the original investigation ended.

A continuing demand for accountability

The sterilization of Native American women remains an important warning about the dangers created when government authority, medical power, racial prejudice and inadequate oversight come together.

The case also demonstrates why a signed form alone cannot establish informed consent. Patients must understand what is being proposed and must be free to accept or reject treatment without coercion.

Acknowledging this history does not require condemning every person who worked for the Indian Health Service. It requires recognizing that systemic failures allowed irreversible procedures to be performed without adequate safeguards and that the government’s response never fully established the extent of the harm.

Native American women were entitled to the same honesty, dignity and medical protections as every other patient. Thousands entered a federal healthcare system that failed to guarantee those rights.

The victims were not merely statistics. They were mothers, daughters, wives, sisters and members of sovereign tribal nations.

Their experiences remain part of American history, even if that history is uncomfortable to confront.

The strongest way to honor them is to present the facts accurately, acknowledge the government’s failures and preserve their stories for future generations.

The forced and coerced sterilization of Native American women was a profound violation of bodily autonomy, medical ethics and basic human rights. It should neither be exaggerated nor forgotten.

Sources: U.S. General Accounting Office, “Investigation of Allegations Concerning Indian Health Service,” 1976; National Library of Medicine, “Government Admits Unauthorized Sterilization of Indian Women.”

CoreCivic: How America’s Private-Prison Giant Makes Its Money

 

CoreCivic is one of the largest private correctional and detention companies in the United States. Founded in 1983 as Corrections Corporation of America, the publicly traded company adopted the CoreCivic name in 2016. Its headquarters are in Brentwood, Tennessee.

CoreCivic does not arrest, prosecute, sentence or independently decide who will be imprisoned. Instead, federal, state and local governments contract with the company to provide correctional facilities, detention space, staffing, security, transportation, food, maintenance and related services.

CoreCivic’s three major operations

CoreCivic divides its business into three principal segments:

• CoreCivic Safety: Prisons, jails and immigration-detention facilities.

• CoreCivic Community: Residential reentry centers, electronic monitoring and case-management services.

• CoreCivic Properties: Correctional and government buildings that CoreCivic owns and leases to public agencies.

Its prison and detention operations are by far the company’s largest business. During the first quarter of 2026, the Safety division generated approximately 94% of CoreCivic’s revenue and nearly 92% of its facility-level operating income.

CoreCivic also owns most of the correctional beds it operates. This gives the company a major competitive advantage because governments needing additional detention space can contract with CoreCivic without spending years financing and constructing new facilities.

How much money does CoreCivic make?

Period	Revenue	Net income
2024	$1.96 billion	$68.9 million
2025	Approximately $2.26 billion	Approximately $116.5 million
First quarter of 2026	$614.7 million	$37.9 million

CoreCivic’s 2025 revenue increased by approximately 13% from 2024, while its net income rose by roughly 69%.

The company continued growing during early 2026. First-quarter revenue increased from $488.5 million in 2025 to $614.7 million in 2026—a gain of approximately 26%. Net income increased from $25.1 million to $37.9 million during the same period.

Revenue should not be confused with profit. Although CoreCivic receives billions of dollars, the company also incurs substantial expenses for employee compensation, food, utilities, maintenance, transportation, insurance, interest, facility construction and healthcare-related services.

During the first quarter of 2026, CoreCivic’s prison and detention division reported approximately $118 in revenue and $90 in operating expenses for each compensated person-day. That produced facility-level operating income of approximately $28 per person-day and an operating margin of 23.7%.

Who pays CoreCivic?

CoreCivic’s customers are government agencies rather than individual consumers. Its important customers include:

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• U.S. Marshals Service

• Federal Bureau of Prisons

• State departments of corrections

• Counties and municipal governments

Federal agencies generated approximately 58% of CoreCivic’s total revenue during the first quarter of 2026.

ICE has become especially important to the company. CoreCivic reported that its ICE revenue increased from $133.2 million during the first quarter of 2025 to $261.3 million during the same period in 2026—an increase of more than 96%.

This dependence on government contracts cuts both ways. Expanded detention and incarceration can produce substantial new revenue, but governments can also reduce their populations, cancel contracts, close facilities or change correctional policies.

A single government decision can add or eliminate tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue. CoreCivic’s financial performance is therefore closely connected to changes in criminal-justice and immigration-enforcement policies.

How CoreCivic earns its revenue

Government agencies generally compensate CoreCivic through negotiated contracts. Depending on the agreement, the company may receive daily payments based on the number of people housed, fixed payments for maintaining available capacity, or a combination of fixed and population-based payments.

The company benefits financially when its facilities serve larger populations because many expenses—such as buildings, security systems, administration and basic staffing—remain relatively fixed. Once those expenses are covered, additional occupied beds can improve a facility’s operating margin.

CoreCivic also benefits from owning ready-to-use correctional facilities. When the government needs detention capacity quickly, activating an existing facility may be faster than constructing a new publicly owned institution.

For example, CoreCivic has reactivated previously idle facilities to accommodate expanding federal immigration detention. These new and expanded contracts have significantly increased the company’s revenue.

Why CoreCivic remains controversial

Supporters argue that CoreCivic gives governments immediate access to secure facilities without requiring taxpayers to finance and construct new prisons. The company maintains that its facilities are subject to government inspections, contract monitors, accreditation requirements and correctional standards.

Critics raise several concerns:

• A private company financially benefits when detention populations increase.

• Governments may become dependent on privately owned correctional infrastructure.

• Cost-cutting pressures could affect staffing, wages, healthcare, safety and rehabilitation.

• Contracting can make public accountability less direct than it is in a government-operated prison.

• Large government contracts create incentives for private companies to lobby policymakers and influence corrections and immigration policy.

• Profits generated through taxpayer-funded incarceration and detention ultimately flow to corporate shareholders.

CoreCivic argues that it provides necessary capacity and specialized services more efficiently than governments could provide on short notice. Critics respond that imprisonment and immigration detention involve fundamental government powers that should not be driven by corporate financial interests.

That is the central debate surrounding CoreCivic: Should incarceration and immigration detention—government actions involving human freedom—produce profits for a publicly traded corporation?

Whatever one’s position, CoreCivic is not a small contractor. It is a multibillion-dollar corporation whose financial success is closely tied to taxpayer-funded incarceration, immigration detention and government enforcement policies.

Trump’s $5,000 Election Promise Raises Serious Questions About Vote Buying and Impeachment

President Donald Trump’s promise of a $5,000 payment to Americans if Republicans prevail in the November elections raises a constitutional and legal question that deserves far more scrutiny than an ordinary campaign promise:

When does promising voters government money stop being politics and start looking like an attempt to buy political support?

During his September 9 speech, Trump promoted what he described as a $5,000 dividend for adult American citizens if Republicans retain control of Congress. He connected the proposed payment directly to Republican electoral victory, telling the audience, “If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000.”

That language matters.

There is an enormous difference between a candidate proposing a tax cut, Social Security increase, infrastructure program or other policy that may financially benefit Americans and telling voters that a specific cash payment will follow if the candidate’s political party wins an election.

The question is whether Trump crossed that line.

Federal Law Prohibits Buying Votes

Federal law already addresses payments connected to voting.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 597, it is unlawful to make or offer an expenditure to a person to induce that person to vote, refrain from voting, or vote for or against a particular candidate.

At first glance, promising Americans $5,000 while simultaneously asking them to elect Republicans sounds disturbingly close to the conduct the law is designed to prevent.

But establishing a criminal violation would be considerably more complicated.

Trump apparently did not say that an individual must prove that he or she voted Republican before receiving the money. The proposed payment appears to be conditioned on Republicans winning collectively rather than on the voting behavior of each recipient.

That distinction could be crucial.

Democrats, independents, Republicans and even people who did not vote could presumably receive the same payment if the proposal were enacted. That makes the arrangement different from the classic example of vote buying: “Vote for my candidate and I will personally give you money.”

For that reason, Trump's remarks should not simply be declared criminal bribery without an investigation and a careful examination of the statute, his exact statements, his intent and the details of the proposed program.

But the Constitutional Question Is Bigger

Even if Trump's promise does not satisfy every element necessary for a criminal vote-buying prosecution, that does not end the matter.

The Constitution provides that a president may be impeached for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Impeachment is not restricted solely to conduct for which a president could successfully be prosecuted in federal court. Historically, the impeachment power also concerns serious abuses of public authority, corruption of office and conduct Congress determines is fundamentally incompatible with the president's constitutional responsibilities.

That creates a different question:

Would using the prestige and power of the presidency to promise enormous federal cash payments explicitly dependent upon the president's political party winning Congress constitute an abuse of power?

Congress has every right to ask that question.

This Is Not the Same as Every Campaign Promise

Trump's defenders have a legitimate counterargument.

Politicians routinely promise policies that put money into Americans' pockets.

Republicans campaign on tax cuts. Democrats campaign on expanded benefits. Candidates promise tax credits, subsidies, debt relief, higher Social Security benefits and economic stimulus programs.

Those promises are not ordinarily considered bribery.

If every government benefit proposed during an election became vote buying, practically every modern political campaign could potentially be criminalized.

But Trump's wording makes this situation unusual.

He did not merely argue that Republican economic policies would eventually make Americans wealthier. He attached a specific dollar amount — $5,000 — to a Republican electoral victory.

“If the Republicans win,” Americans “get $5,000.”

That is precisely why the statement deserves examination rather than dismissal as ordinary campaign rhetoric.

Congress Should Investigate

The appropriate response is not to declare Trump guilty before the facts and law have been examined.

It is to investigate.

Congress should determine exactly what Trump was proposing, where the money would come from, whether Congress would have to appropriate it, who would qualify, whether people who voted Democratic or did not vote would receive it, and whether administration officials were involved in developing the proposal.

Most importantly, investigators should examine whether the promise was presented as legitimate public policy or deliberately designed as a financial inducement to influence the November election.

If evidence established that presidential authority or federal resources were being used to offer voters money specifically in exchange for keeping the president's party in power, the constitutional implications could become extremely serious.

Could It Become Grounds for Impeachment?

Potentially.

The House of Representatives possesses the constitutional authority to investigate presidential misconduct and determine whether conduct constitutes an impeachable offense.

That does not mean Trump's speech automatically warrants impeachment.

It means impeachment cannot simply be dismissed because prosecutors might have difficulty proving criminal vote buying under 18 U.S.C. § 597.

Congress could independently determine that deliberately conditioning a massive government payout on the president's party winning an election constitutes an abuse of presidential power or another “high Crime or Misdemeanor.”

If the House ultimately approved articles of impeachment, conviction and removal would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate.

The Question Americans Should Be Asking

Strip away Trump's name and political party and consider the precedent.

Imagine any sitting president standing before voters weeks before a congressional election and saying, in substance:

Keep my party in control of Congress and Americans will receive thousands of dollars.

Would Americans be comfortable with that becoming standard presidential campaign practice?

If the answer is no, then Trump's $5,000 promise deserves serious scrutiny regardless of whether one supports or opposes him.

The central issue is larger than Donald Trump.

Democratic elections are supposed to determine who controls the government. Government resources should never become electoral bargaining chips through which those already holding power effectively tell citizens: keep our party in office and there will be money waiting for you afterward.

Whether Trump's remarks ultimately constitute illegal vote buying is a question for legal analysis and potentially investigators and courts.

Whether they represent an alarming collision between presidential power, public money and electoral politics is a question Congress — and American voters — should be asking right now.

I can also make this more prosecutorial and hard-hitting, while keeping the distinction between alleged vote buying and a legally established crime.

The Warning Before October 7: Netanyahu Has Questions to Answer

The emerging allegations about what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knew before October 7, 2023, demand something far more serious than another round of political finger-pointing.

They demand an accounting.

According to reporting originating with Haaretz and detailed by The Times of Israel, roughly 10 days before Hamas launched the deadliest attack in Israel’s history, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed allegedly personally warned Netanyahu that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was preparing a major operation against Israel.

This was allegedly not a vague warning buried somewhere in an intelligence report.

According to the account, it was communicated directly to Israel's prime minister during a lengthy conversation with the leader of a friendly Arab state.

Netanyahu's office emphatically denies the allegation, saying no such warning was given and disputing that the reported conversation occurred during the period in question. That denial matters and must be investigated alongside the evidence supporting the allegation.

But if the reported warning is substantiated, the implications are staggering.

A Warning That Allegedly Reached the Top

The reporting is based in part on the forthcoming book Kidnapped: 843 Days of Abandonment, by journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval.

According to the account, Sinwar had communicated through intermediaries that Hamas was preparing something extraordinary. The information eventually reached the Emirati leadership.

The reported warning became serious enough that bin Zayed allegedly contacted Netanyahu personally.

According to The Times of Israel, citing the Haaretz account, bin Zayed warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was preparing a major event that could result in bloodshed, destabilize the region and damage the Abraham Accords.

Netanyahu reportedly responded calmly, indicating that Israel had Gaza under control and was prepared for possible scenarios.

Ten days later, Israel was not prepared.

Hamas-led attackers breached Israel's defenses on October 7, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. The attack triggered a devastating regional war whose consequences continue years later.

That sequence creates unavoidable questions.

What exactly was Netanyahu told?

When was he told?

Who else knew?

What did Netanyahu do after receiving the alleged warning?

And, critically, did he ensure that Israel's military and intelligence leadership understood its seriousness?

Security Leaders Reportedly Were Not Told

Perhaps the most consequential allegation is that Netanyahu did not pass the Emirati president's warning to the officials responsible for protecting Israel.

Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar and former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi told Haaretz that they had not been informed of the reported warning.

One former senior Shin Bet official told the newspaper that knowing about it could potentially have caused intelligence officials to reassess other information they had received regarding Sinwar.

That does not establish that October 7 would have been prevented. Intelligence agencies routinely receive fragmentary, ambiguous and sometimes deliberately misleading information.

But it raises a far more basic question:

Why would information important enough for the president of the UAE to personally raise with Israel's prime minister not be immediately placed before the country's senior security officials?

That question cannot responsibly be answered through partisan talking points.

It requires evidence.

There Were Other Warning Signs

The allegation becomes more significant when placed alongside other information described in the reporting.

According to The Times of Israel's account of the Haaretz investigation, intermediaries had already passed information connected to Sinwar to Israeli security officials during September. Israeli officials discussed the information but apparently did not interpret it as indicating an imminent Gaza invasion.

The report also says that on October 1, Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar proposed possible proactive measures against Hamas leadership. Netanyahu reportedly requested proposals for consideration but made no immediate decision.

The new reporting therefore does not describe a single magical piece of intelligence that necessarily revealed the exact date, time and operational plan for October 7.

It describes something potentially more troubling: fragments of information accumulating while Israel's political and security establishment continued operating under assumptions about Hamas that proved catastrophically wrong.

The question investigators must answer is whether Netanyahu possessed an additional warning that could have changed that assessment — and, if so, why it apparently was not shared.

Netanyahu Denies It

There is another side to this story, and it must be stated plainly.

Netanyahu's office has rejected the allegations.

It initially characterized the report as a "total lie" and subsequently said that Netanyahu received no warning from the UAE before October 7. His office added that relevant intelligence, if it existed, would have been transmitted through established intelligence channels.

The UAE government has not publicly confirmed the reported conversation. Its Foreign Ministry said it does not comment on reports or speculation concerning conversations between leaders, while noting that the UAE and Israel maintain direct communications and that relevant intelligence is shared through appropriate channels.

However, The Times of Israel reported that an Emirati source familiar with the conversation confirmed that a warning was delivered during a call between the two leaders.

That creates a direct factual dispute.

And factual disputes of this magnitude are precisely why an independent investigation is necessary.

Put Everyone Under Oath

October 7 should not be investigated according to whether the evidence helps Netanyahu's supporters or his opponents.

Investigators should obtain phone records, diplomatic communications, intelligence assessments, meeting minutes, security briefings and contemporaneous notes.

Officials with direct knowledge should testify.

The alleged intermediaries should be interviewed.

Israeli intelligence officials should explain what they knew and when.

The UAE should be asked to provide whatever records it can lawfully disclose concerning the reported communication.

And Netanyahu himself should be required to give a complete account of what information reached him before October 7 and what he did with it.

The objective should not be to manufacture guilt.

It should be to establish responsibility.

The Prime Minister Cannot Be Exempt From Scrutiny

Israel's military and intelligence institutions have already faced intense scrutiny over their failures preceding October 7. Senior security officials have acknowledged failures, and several senior figures have left their positions.

Political leadership cannot reasonably be placed beyond the same examination.

A prime minister cannot claim ultimate authority when national security policy succeeds and then insist that responsibility belongs exclusively to intelligence officers and generals when the system catastrophically fails.

If Netanyahu never received the warning described in the new reporting, an independent investigation can establish that.

If he received it but reasonably concluded it was unreliable, investigators should establish that too.

If he transmitted it through other channels, those records should be produced.

But if evidence ultimately establishes that the prime minister personally received a warning from the president of the UAE that Hamas was preparing a major operation and failed to ensure that Israel's security leadership acted upon it, Israelis deserve to know exactly why.

October 7 was not an abstract policy failure.

People were murdered in their homes and communities. Soldiers and civilians were killed. Hundreds were taken hostage. Families were shattered. The attack unleashed a war that devastated Gaza and transformed the Middle East.

With consequences that enormous, "who knew what, and when?" is not merely a political question.

It is an obligation to history.

The allegation against Netanyahu remains disputed. It should neither be dismissed because it is politically damaging nor accepted as proven because it is politically explosive.

It should be investigated.

Documents should be produced. Witnesses should testify. Contradictions should be confronted. Evidence should determine what happened.

And wherever that evidence ultimately leads, accountability should follow.