Imposing new restrictions against the backdrop of peace talks between Moscow and Kiev is wrong, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico believes

The EU is wrong to slap Russia with a fresh round of sanctions against the backdrop of peace talks between Moscow and Kiev, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said. He compared the restrictions to a “plague” and stated that they do more harm to the bloc itself while hardly affecting Russia.

EU ambassadors on Wednesday approved a 17th package of sanctions against Russia, which targets nearly 200 oil tankers that the West claims are part of Russia’s “shadow fleet.” These are older vessels that operate outside the Western insurance system. The move came just two days before a meeting between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul in what were the first direct peace talks between the two sides in three years.

“Sanctions are like a plague and I reject the sanctions policy,” Fico told the Slovak STVR broadcaster, maintaining that the restrictions imposed by Brussels have so far only damaged the EU. He believes that Russia managed to quickly adapt to all the punitive measures.

Fico also said he would support a national referendum on rejecting EU sanctions on Russia should someone call for one. If any new restrictions risk damaging the Slovak economy, he will veto them at the EU level, he stated.

The Slovak leader also said that he discussed a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Moscow earlier in May. According to Fico, diplomacy is still the best way to resolve the Ukraine conflict, with negotiations between Putin and US President Donald Trump being key to reaching a settlement.

On Friday, Moscow and Kiev agreed to a major prisoner swap and decided to continue contacts once each side prepares a detailed ceasefire plan and presents it to the other. Following the talks, several EU nations called for more pressure against Moscow. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stated that the EU and US must “suffocate” the Russian economy “once and for all.”

Slovakia took what Fico calls a “constructive” and pragmatic approach towards Russia upon coming to power in 2023. “Europe needs Russia, and Russia needs Europe,” he said in a video message last week, reflecting on his visit to Moscow. “We must pursue a policy of cooperation, not one of hatred and iron curtains.”

Peace, Leo notes, is not merely a negative condition, namely the absence of conflict.  True peace between people has as a positive precondition a purity of heart that entails freedom from pride and vindictiveness, and a will to cooperate and understand rather than to conquer.  Here there is an echo of Augustine’s famous account of peace as “the tranquility of order,” where order involves a unity of purpose.  Peace in a community requires agreement on an end, and for Augustine it must be the right end.  What end is that?  For Augustine it is God, and significantly, Leo remarks that “peace is first and foremost a gift.  It is the first gift of Christ.”  (I have more to say about Augustine’s account of peace in a recent Postliberal Order article.)

Turning to justice, Leo indicates that this too requires well-ordered societies.  In this connection, he calls attention to Leo XIII’s famous social encyclical Rerum Novarum.  Importantly, while he mentions working conditions, poverty, and the like, his emphasis is on something else.  He says:

It is the responsibility of government leaders to work to build harmonious and peaceful civil societies.  This can be achieved above all by investing in the family, founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman, “a small but genuine society, and prior to all civil society.”  In addition, no one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike.

The phrase in quotation marks is from Rerum Novarum, and it is the one direct quote from that document.  Like Leo XIII and other popes who have set out Catholic social teaching, Leo emphasizes that the health of the family is the fundamental precondition of the health of society, and that seeing to the health of the family is one of the duties of governing officials. 

This basic truth of Catholic social teaching is radically at odds with long-prevailing attitudes on both the political left and the political right.  Both, in their different ways, wrongly insist on emphasizing economics rather than morality and culture when addressing social problems.  Both have essentially endorsed the sexual revolution and its transformation in attitudes about divorce, extramarital sex, homosexuality, and the like, albeit the right has done so in a more gradual, piecemeal, and in some cases reluctant manner.  And both have now essentially adopted the libertarian position that even if one laments the sexual revolution, government has no place in trying to roll it back.  From the point of view of Catholic social doctrine, true social justice cannot be achieved until we at long last abandon these errors.

On the topic of truth, Leo says:

Where words take on ambiguous and ambivalent connotations, and the virtual world, with its altered perception of reality, takes over unchecked, it is difficult to build authentic relationships, since the objective and real premises of communication are lacking.  For her part, the Church can never be exempted from speaking the truth about humanity and the world, resorting whenever necessary to blunt language that may initially create misunderstanding.

Though earlier in his address, he had also called for “carefully choosing our words.  For words too, not only weapons, can wound and even kill.”

Leo’s point here seems to be, first, that one obstacle to truth prevailing in human relationships today is the degree to which people’s perceptions are shaped by the “virtual world” – social media and the like, with the biases, groupthink, hot takes, and emotion-driven commentary that it fosters.  This virtual world is reminiscent of the shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave, which radically distort the understanding of those who dwell in it.

Another obstacle to truth, Leo indicates, is the way that language is so often used today as a weapon or a means of obfuscation, rather than a means of communicating for the sake of mutual understanding and describing objective reality.  Hence the tendency of politicians to use words to flummox opponents, rile up allies, and keep citizens perpetually off balance and divided; and of ideologues to introduce novel usages so as to lend false plausibility to rank sophistries (think of the violence done to language by gender theory, for example). 

Leo teaches that we must remain grounded in objective reality and insist on using language to convey that reality, even bluntly wherever necessary.  This, he goes on to say, is what charity requires, for genuine unity between people must be grounded in truth.  And ultimately, he also says, “truth is not the affirmation of abstract and disembodied principles, but an encounter with the person of Christ himself, alive in the midst of the community of believers.”

This emphasis on truth as ultimately Christocentric once again echoes Augustine.  It also once again echoes Leo XIII, who in Rerum Novarum not only emphasizes that getting the family right is a basic precondition of social justice, but also that, even more fundamentally, “no satisfactory solution will be found unless religion and the Church have been called upon to aid.”  As Leo XIII went on to say in that grand encyclical:

Without hesitation We affirm that if the Church is disregarded, human striving will be in vain… And since religion alone, as We said in the beginning, can remove the evil, root and branch, let all reflect upon this: First and foremost Christian morals must be reestablished, without which even the weapons of prudence, which are considered especially effective, will be of no avail, to secure well-being.

One last remark about Leo XIV’s address.  His phrase “family of peoples” is, I think, especially apt today as an implicit correction to two opposite extreme errors found on the opposite sides of the political spectrum.  On the left we find a globalism that tends to dissolve borders and treats national loyalties as if they are somehow inherently suspect.  On the right we find a jingoistic bellicosity that overcorrects for this globalism.  To see the world as a family of peoples is to see what is wrong with both of these extremes.  For distinct peoples have a right to preserve what defines them as a people, culturally, linguistically, and economically.  But a good member of a family of peoples does not bully or intimidate or lord it over other family members.

Then, saying that he has “seen pictures,” (Pope Francis) 

regretted the fact that priests still wear vestments with lace: “Where are we? Sixty years after the Council! Some updating [is needed] even in liturgical art, in liturgical ‘fashion’!”

“Yes, sometimes bringing some of Grandma’s lace goes, but sometimes,” Francis told the priests. “It’s to pay homage to grandma, right? It’s good to pay homage to grandma, but it’s better to celebrate the mother, the holy mother Church, and to do so how Mother Church wants to be celebrated.”

The main office of CIA cutout Voice of America has been listed for “accelerated disposal,” according to the media outlet

The administration of US President Donald Trump is moving to sell the headquarters of state-funded media outlet Voice of America (VOA), Bloomberg has reported.

VOA’s building is among several properties designated for “accelerated disposal” under Trump’s initiative to downsize government operations, the news outlet wrote on Thursday. Besides VOA, the Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building houses offices for the outlet’s sprawling parent entity, the US Agency for Global Media, as well as for the Department of Health and Human Services.

In March, the US president ordered sweeping cuts at USAGM, as part of a wider move to cut federal spending and realign foreign aid and other soft-power tools with his administration’s policy. While the move prompted legal pushback, last week a US court lifted an injunction that had stood in the way of the agency being further dismantled.

Trump, who has described VOA as “radical propaganda” and an “unnecessary” burden on the US taxpayer, fired nearly 600 of the outlet’s contractors on Thursday.

The state-funded outlet was established in the 1940s to counter Nazi propaganda and later shifted its focus to spreading pro-Western messaging in the Soviet bloc. VOA has liaised with and been fed intelligence by the CIA, and is widely regarded as one of Washington’s international propaganda arms.

USAGM subsidiary outlets Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting are also in the firing line as part of Trump adviser and government efficiency czar Elon Musk’s effort to trim the federal budget, Bloomberg noted.

The US General Services Administration, which manages government real estate, briefly listed 443 federal properties for sale all at once in March, before retracting the listing within a day. The sales have since been moving forward with more deliberation, according to Bloomberg.

Faced with backlash during the massive federal cuts Musk oversaw, the tech mogul has announced that he would cut back his role in the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). According to an ABC opinion poll from late April, 57% of respondents disapproved of Musk’s performance in government, while just over a third endorsed his work.

Russia, China, and India working together can make multipolarity a reality, Min Aung Hlaing has said

The world should not be controlled by a single power, Myanmar Prime Minister Min Aung Hlaing has said in an exclusive interview with RT. A multipolar system is the best approach to avoid conflict, he believes.

In the interview aired on Saturday, the prime minister stressed that developing countries such as Myanmar have especially suffered “under a unipolar system.”

“That is why transitioning to a multipolar world works best for us. It is better to share global resources, to act fairly, to distribute things more evenly. Conflicts arise from inequality, so if we want to avoid conflicts, I believe a multipolar system is the best approach,” he said.

“The US and Western bloc controlled the world through unipolarity. Then it became bipolar, and from bipolarity it returned to unipolarity. This made the West stronger,” Hlaing said.

However, “in this era, Russia, China and India have made tremendous progress militarily, economically and scientifically,” the prime minister noted. “As they have advanced, we have moved towards multipolarity and that is how it should be. No single power should control the world,” he said.

If Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi, which are “three equally important global powers,” collaborate and “act in unison, multipolarity will become a global reality. No one will accept this unipolarity anymore,” the Myanmar leader emphasized.

In order to succeed in the multipolar world, smaller countries “must try to cooperate” with Russia, China, and India, he said. “Making that attempt is absolutely worthwhile. We need to develop our own economic capabilities, while simultaneously increasing cooperation with each other,” he added.

Hlaing was among the high-ranking foreign guests who visited Moscow for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany on May 9.

Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that relations between Moscow and Naypyidaw have been developing steadily and had “good potential.” In 2024 alone, trade turnover between the two nations increased by 40%, he noted. Putin also expressed gratitude to the leadership of Myanmar for facilitating Russia’s cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The US-led bloc reportedly wants Berlin to have a much larger army

NATO is urging Germany to significantly expand its military forces, Die Welt revealed on Saturday, citing sources. Officials in Berlin reportedly believe that the country, which is burdened by high dropout rates, will struggle to meet the proposed targets.

As NATO members are poised to convene for the July summit in The Hague, discussions about increasing national defense spending to 5% of GDP – a target the US reportedly insists on – and expanding troop numbers are expected to loom large on the agenda.

Germany, for its part, is facing “particular challenges,” including a proposal to increase the Bundeswehr’s personnel to between 240,000 and 260,000 soldiers by 2030, an increase of up to 80,000 troops from current levels of around 183,000, according to Welt.

Difficulties with ballooning the military are exacerbated by high dropout rates among new recruits, with up to 30% leaving within the first six months, the paper says. Other factors contributing to attrition include harsh training, distant postings, and limited career prospects, as many potential soldiers view the private sector as a much more attractive option. In addition, some military branches reportedly resist accepting soldiers trained in other divisions.

The German paper also warned that if the Bundeswehr attempts to adopt the new target, “the debate about reactivating conscription is likely to flare up,” and the recruitment effort could be quite unpopular.

On Wednesday, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius signaled that if there are not enough volunteers Germany may need to revive conscription, which was abolished in 2011. In April, the Interior Ministry also proposed introducing civil defense lessons in schools to prepare students for potential crises and conflicts.

This comes as a number of Western officials have claimed that Russia could launch an attack on NATO within several years. Moscow has repeatedly denied having such plans, dismissing the speculation as “nonsense.”

The US president has said he believes Washington and Moscow can end the conflict

Russian President Vladimir Putin would like to resolve the Ukraine conflict, his US counterpart, Donald Trump, has said. He added that he is certain Washington and Moscow will be able to make a deal and put an end to the hostilities.

On Friday, Russian and Ukrainian delegations held a meeting in Istanbul, which marked the first direct talks since 2022. Both sides agreed to exchange lists of conditions for a potential ceasefire, conduct a major prisoner swap, and discuss a follow-up meeting.

In a Fox News interview aired the same day, Trump pushed back against the notion that Putin does not want to engage in any kind of talks over Ukraine. “He is at the table, and he wanted this meeting,” the US president said, adding: “I think Putin is tired of this whole thing.”

According to Trump, however, his involvement is essential to a breakthrough in the peace process. “I always felt there can’t be a meeting without me because I don’t think a deal’s gonna get through,” he said.

Nevertheless, he expressed optimism about the chances of reaching a settlement. “I have a very good relationship with Putin. I think we’ll make a deal. We have to get together, and I think we’ll probably schedule it.”

When pressed again on whether he sees Putin as an “obstacle to peace,” Trump shifted the focus to Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. “I had a real rough session with Zelensky, because I didn’t like what he said. He was not making it easy… He doesn’t have the cards,” he said, explaining that Ukraine is fighting against a “massive army.”

Trump was apparently referring to a public spat with the Ukrainian leader during which he accused Zelensky of ingratitude for past US military aid and “gambling with World War III.”

The US president went on to criticize the policy of assisting Ukraine adopted by his predecessor, Joe Biden. “Every time… he [Zelensky] came to Washington, he walks out with $100 billion… I think he’s the greatest salesman in the world, far better than me,” Trump said, adding that Congress has grown frustrated with this as well.

The Ukrainian leader was initially reluctant to agree to the talks in Istanbul proposed by Russia without any conditions, insisting that they should be preceded by a 30-day ceasefire. Moscow has not ruled out the idea in principle, but said Kiev could use the pause to rebuild its battered military.

Despite initial pushback, Zelensky sent a delegation to Istanbul after Trump insisted that “Ukraine should agree to this immediately.”

The Russian foreign minister has welcomed the “positive role” the US played in getting Kiev to the negotiating table

The top Russian and US diplomats have shared their assessments of the Istanbul talks in a phone call, the Russian Foreign Ministry has said. Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio welcomed the negotiations and underscored the readiness of the sides to work together toward peace in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, according to the ministry.

The conversation took place on Saturday at the initiative of the US, according to the statement. Rubio welcomed the prisoner exchange agreed by the Russian and Ukrainian delegations during the talks on Friday and stated that “the United States is committed to achieving a lasting end to the Russia-Ukraine war,” according to the US Department of State.

Lavrov praised the “positive role” America played in bringing Kiev to the negotiating table and agreeing to resume the Istanbul peace process. He also expressed Moscow’s readiness to work with Washington on this.

In addition, Lavrov and Rubio discussed other international and regional issues, as well as Russia-US bilateral contacts, the ministry said, without providing further details.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky initially ruled out any talks with Moscow unless Russia agreed to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. The Kremlin has rejected Kiev’s demands, arguing that Ukraine would use the pause to regroup and rearm its military.

However, Zelensky agreed to talks after US President Donald Trump expressed his support for Putin’s initiative and urged Kiev to agree to it “immediately.”

The Russian and Ukrainian delegations met in the Turkish city of Istanbul on Friday, following President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to resume peace talks without any preconditions.

The peace process between the two nations was disrupted in spring 2022 after several rounds of talks in Belarus and Türkiye, when Kiev unilaterally walked away from the negotiations. David Arakhamia, the head of the Ukrainian delegation at the time, later stated that the decision was made after a visit to Kiev by then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who he said told the Ukrainian government to not sign anything and “just fight.”

Western Europeans demand attention but offer no value

When Russian President Vladimir Putin recently remarked that Russia and Western Europe would “sooner or later” restore constructive relations, it was less a statement of policy than a reminder of historical inevitability. For now, there are no signs of readiness on the part of the EU. But history is full of unexpected reversals, and diplomacy has always required patience. Still, when that moment comes, Russia will have to ask a hard question: what, exactly, does it have to gain from Western Europe?

At present, the answer appears to be very little. EU leaders behave as though Russia remains the same country they remember from the 1990s – isolated, weakened, and desperate to be heard. That world is gone. Today’s Russia neither needs Western European approval nor fears its condemnation. And yet EU officials continue speaking in tones of paternalism and ultimatums, as if they still believe they represent something decisive on the world stage.

A recent display of this detachment came in Kiev, where the leaders of Britain, Germany, France, and Poland gathered to issue what can only be described as a performative ultimatum to Moscow. The content was irrelevant; it was the posture that was telling. One could only wonder: who, exactly, do they believe is listening? Certainly not Russia, and increasingly, not the rest of the world either.

Western Europe today poses no independent threat to Russia. It lacks both military capability and economic leverage. Its real danger lies not in strength but in weakness: the possibility that its provocations could drag others into crises it cannot control. Its influence has diminished, and it has largely burned the bridges that once made cooperation costly for Russia. The West’s cold war fantasies are now detached from the material realities of global power.

The EU elite’s fundamental miscalculation is assuming that Russia still views the western part of the continent as a model to emulate. But today’s Russia has little reason to aspire to European institutions, politics, or economic design. Indeed, in areas such as digital governance and public administration, Russia is ahead. Western European efforts to “modernize” Russia through consulting and institutional outreach have long since lost relevance.

EU stagnation is not just political but also technological. Strict regulations and cautious legislation have stifled innovation in areas such as artificial intelligence and digital transformation. In fields where other European nations could once have partnered with Russia, different global actors have already stepped in. The reality is that Western Europe has little to offer that Russia cannot obtain elsewhere.

In education, too, Western Europe’s attraction has faded. Its academic institutions increasingly serve as conduits for intellectual siphoning, rather than genuine exchange. What was once a strength is now perceived as an instrument of cultural dilution.

To be clear, Russia is not rejecting diplomacy with other European powers. But such diplomacy must be grounded in mutual benefit – and right now, Western Europe offers little. The real tragedy is that many European leaders were raised in a post-Cold War world that taught them they would never face consequences. That arrogance has calcified into a kind of strategic illiteracy. Figures like Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, exemplify this reality: performative, insulated, and disconnected from the costs of their decisions.

Still, change is inevitable. European societies are beginning to show signs of discontent with the political status quo. Citizens are demanding more influence over their own futures. Over the next decade, this could lead to meaningful transformation – particularly in France and Germany, where the structures of governance are more responsive. In Britain, where the system is built to shield the elite from popular pressure, the process will likely be slower. Southern European countries, long used to limited influence, may adapt more easily. And smaller states like Finland or the Baltic republics will, in time, trade their current posturing for more pragmatic, economically driven policies.

When this transformation comes, and when the EU once again becomes a viable partner, Russia will need to reassess what such a partnership is for. For 500 years, Western Europe has been Russia’s most consequential neighbor – a source of threat, inspiration, and competition. But that era is ending. The region no longer defines the terms of modernity. It no longer sets the example. And it no longer commands fear.

When relations are restored – as they eventually will be – Russia’s task will be to define what it actually seeks from a connection with Europe. The days of automatic deference are over. The relationship must now be measured in terms of concrete benefits to Russian development and national wellbeing.

In this new era, Russia does not seek revenge or dominance. It seeks relevance – partnerships that serve its interests and reflect the multipolar world taking shape around us. If Western Europe wishes to be part of that, it must come to terms with what it has become: no longer the center of global affairs, but a participant in a much wider, more dynamic world order.

The rest of Europe’s pale shadow still lingers in the Russian memory. But memory is not destiny. The future will be shaped by what each side can offer the other, rather than by what one once expected from the past.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Washington has reportedly offered to unfreeze billions in funds belonging to the North African state if it accepts residents of Gaza

The administration of US President Donald Trump is working on a plan to permanently relocate up to 1 million Palestinians from Gaza to Libya, NBC has reported, citing informed sources. The White House has denied the claim.

Since taking office in January, Trump has repeatedly said that the US is prepared to take control of Gaza and transform it into a resort on the Mediterranean Sea. The idea has faced strong opposition from other nations in the region, who argue that such plans violate international law, threaten regional stability, and undermine the rights of Palestinians to remain on their ancestral lands.

The plan to relocate around a half of Gaza’s population to Libya is under “serious” consideration in the White House, the broadcaster claimed in an article on Friday.

According to the sources, in exchange for Libya accepting the Palestinians, the Trump administration could be ready to unfreeze some $30 billion in funds belonging to the North African state that were blocked a decade ago.

The NBC report said that Washington had already discussed the idea with the Libyan leadership, although it did not specify which of the country’s rivaling governments it was.

Libya remains in turmoil since a NATO-backed uprising ousted its long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. The Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU) and the UN-recognized government’s Stability Support Apparatus (SSA) in the city of Tobruk are currently vying for power in the country.

The head of the head of SSA government, Abdulghani al-Kikli, also known as Ghaniwa, was assassinated this past Monday, which led to clashes in Tripoli. The US State Department advises American citizens against traveling to Libya “due to crime, terrorism, unexploded landmines, civil unrest, kidnapping, and armed conflict.” 

Israel is being informed about the discussion between the US and Libya, the sources said.

No final agreement on moving Palestinians has been reached, according to NBC, which added that details about when or how the plan could be implemented remain “murky.” 

READ MORE: Recognizing Palestine could be one of Trump’s most pro-Israel moves yet

A Trump administration spokesman has said that the report by NBC was “untrue.” The spokesman stressed that the “situation on the ground [in Libya] is untenable for such a plan. Such a plan was not discussed and makes no sense.”

These are the ones that I see as important, although our new Holy Father may have other things in mind apart from my grocery list:

1. TC: Not only is this document cruel as well as later legislation approved by the pope, it is anti-synodal and removes responsibility for the liturgy of the Church from the local bishop, even micromanaging bulletins and what Liturgies can be listed and what can’t. Apart from its authoritarian content, its ecclesiology is questionable. Grotesque discontinuity between the previous Pope Benedict and the new Pope Francis could not be more clear. These hermeneutic of discontinuity and the completely authoritarian nature of the document as well as its cruelty needs to be addressed by Pope Leo. 

2. FS: This is not a development of doctrine or deepening of the doctrine of blessings, but a virus to change the nature of marriage acceptable in the Church. It is a move to bless same sex or LGBTQ+++ relationships, to bless the sexual union not just the people. It was not needed because at every Mass and other occasion when a public blessing is given, sinners as individuals are blessed too. The graces of the blessing are conditioned, though, on the openness of the person to the blessing and the on-going repentance and conversion that every soul needs. Blessing couples or polygamists as such implies blessing the sinful lifestyle. Pope Leo needs to address the heterodoxy of this document or the development of heterodoxy this document has already produced in some dioceses. 

3. Amoris laetitia is a good document except for one little old virus producing footnote. That footnote must be eliminated and an authoritative interpretation of AL must be offered by the new pontiff. 

4. Visitation of more traditional Religious Orders while neglecting Liberal Religious Orders which are out of control, like the Jesuits. Fairness in visitations should be established as well as transparency for the visitation.

From AI:

Monophysitism is a Christological doctrine that holds that Jesus Christ has only one nature, a single divine and human nature combined. It is the opposite of dyophysitism, which asserts that Christ has two distinct natures, human and divine. Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Contestants would engage in challenges such as gold mining in California and making cars in Detroit

The US Department of Homeland Security is considering being part of a reality TV show in which migrants compete against each other for American citizenship, the agency’s assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, has said.

In each episode, contestants would take part in American-themed challenges such as digging for gold in California and assembling a car at a plant in Detroit, according to the pitch, which has been seen by a number of outlets. It would reportedly conclude with a town hall meeting and a final vote to select the winner.

The idea for the series, which has the working title ‘The American’, comes from Rob Worsoff, the producer behind reality shows such as ‘The Millionaire Matchmaker’, ‘Duck Dynasty’, and ‘The Biggest Loser’.

The Daily Mail, which was one of the first outlets to report on the development on Thursday, claimed that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has been pushing for the series to be made.

McLaughlin denied the report in a post on X on Friday, calling it “false” and “an affront to journalism.” Noem is not “even aware” of the reality TV show pitch, she insisted.

The DHS receives hundreds of TV show proposals every year and each of them “undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval,” the assistant secretary said. The pitch for ‘The American’ “has not received approval or denial by staff,” she added.

The pitch reportedly says: “contestants will represent a wide demographic of ages, ethnicities, and talents. We will join in the laughter, tears, frustration and joy – hearing their backstories – as we are reminded of how amazing it is to be American, through the eyes of 12 wonderful people, who want nothing more than to have what we have – and what we often take for granted: the freedom, opportunity and honor of what it means to be American.”

Worsoff, who immigrated to the US from Canada, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that none of the losers in the show would be penalized or face deportation. “This is not ‘The Hunger Games’ for immigrants,” he said.

READ MORE: US to pay illegal migrants to leave

In an interview with CNN, Worsoff noted that he first pitched the idea for the series to the DHS during the administration of US President Barack Obama. He added that he recently held three meetings with DHS officials regarding the show. “I feel like we are trending in a good way,” he said.