ReportWire

Tag: DHS

  • Is a DHS tool kicking naturalized citizens off voter rolls?

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration revamped a tool to search citizenship status and help states find ineligible voters.

    A Florida Democratic lawmaker said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is using it to target eligible voters.

    “DHS is pushing states to ban naturalized U.S. citizens from voting by falsely labeling them as illegal,” U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Feb. 15 on X. “It’s an attack on democracy disguised as immigration enforcement. If the SAVE Act becomes law, DHS would use the same flawed, untested tool nationwide.”

    Wasserman Schultz’s post linked to a news investigation that reported the Systematic Alien Verification Act (SAVE) tool has wrongly identified foreign-born, naturalized U.S. citizens as ineligible voters. Previously, the SAVE tool was primarily used to prevent noncitizens from using federal benefits, but the Trump administration rapidly expanded it in 2025, building a national citizenship lookup tool to find noncitizens on state voter rolls.

    Right now, states’ participation is voluntary. But if the SAVE America Act becomes law, they would be required to use the tool.

    Federal law already bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections and cases of noncitizen voting are rare. If they vote, noncitizens risk deportation, fines, or jail time. 

    The U.S. House recently passed the SAVE America Act, which would require people to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and present an approved form of photo ID when voting. 

    The bill has President Donald Trump’s support but faces a shaky future in the Senate. 

    As lawmakers consider imposing the expanded SAVE tool across the country, we looked at how Florida and other states are using it and what it means for voters.

    What is the SAVE tool?

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services runs the SAVE tool, which checks immigrants’ eligibility for public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, housing loans and unemployment.

    For more than a decade, some states, including Florida, have used SAVE to check people’s citizenship status for voter registration. 

    What changed in 2025?

    The Trump administration expanded the tool by pulling in data from across the federal government to try to help states find noncitizen voters.

    The overhaul started after Trump’s March executive order directing the Social Security Administration to share data on anyone who has ever applied for a Social Security number to help states verify voter eligibility. The tool continues to merge data, recently including the State Department’s U.S. passport database.

    The tool now lets state election officials use the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, passport numbers, names and birth dates to check if voters are citizens. They also use it to verify whether voters have died.

    The Justice Department, meanwhile, has told states to turn over their voter rolls to find noncitizens, and then sued about half of those states for failing to fully comply. 

    What have Florida and other states discovered using the tool? 

    Florida is among 26 states that use or plan to use the tool for voter verification, DHS said.

    In a 2025 report, Florida’s Office of Election Crimes and Security said preliminary investigations into the citizenship status of more than 835 people found that 198 were “likely noncitizens” who illegally registered or voted in Florida; it referred 170 to law enforcement. The report said it used various methods in its investigation, including DMV records, documents relevant to citizenship, and the SAVE tool to cross verify people’s status.

    The office didn’t respond to PolitiFact’s questions about how many of Florida’s more than 13.3 million registered voters were confirmed noncitizens, voted in recent elections or faced criminal charges. The secretary of state’s office also didn’t say how many citizens have been mistakenly flagged by the SAVE tool. 

    Several Florida county elections officials told PolitiFact that the state primarily sends a list of potential noncitizens to their offices for their review. 

    Alachua County, which has about 162,600 registered voters, used information from the tool to remove nine people from its voter rolls for noncitizenship since January 2025, said Dillon Boatner, an information specialist at the county’s elections office. Three of the nine had cast votes within the past four years, he said. 

    Polk County, which has about 444,900 registered voters, confirmed 69 people flagged by the system were noncitizens and were removed from voter rolls over the last year, said Melony Bell, the county’s elections supervisor. When PolitiFact asked for the total number of people the tool flagged for review, and how many ended up being U.S. citizens, Bell said the office couldn’t pull a report providing those numbers.
     
    Leah Valenti, Charlotte County’s elections supervisor, told The New York Times that 15 out of 176,000 names she uploaded to the tool came back as noncitizens. Of those, three people were mistakenly added to the rolls and two others had already sent in documentation to prove their naturalized citizenship.

    Other states using the tool likewise haven’t reported large numbers of noncitizens casting ballots.

    Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry, a Republican, said in September that officials identified 79 “likely noncitizens” who had voted in at least one election since the 1980s after running nearly all of the state’s 2.9 million voters through the tool.

    Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, also a Republican, said in January that officials spent months examining the state’s 2 million registered voters and found one confirmed noncitizen, who never voted. 

    Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked in SAVE across the country, The New York Times reported Jan. 14 that federal officials referred around 10,000 for further investigation of noncitizenship, or roughly .02% of the names processed. 

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told PolitiFact over 59 million voter verification queries have been processed in the tool since its relaunch.

    Why are people concerned about the tool’s accuracy?

    Lawyers and organizations who specialize in voting rights have warned that using SAVE to verify citizenship can lead to errors because the data is sometimes based on incomplete or outdated information.

    A Feb. 13 ProPublica and Texas Tribune investigation found that the tool has made persistent mistakes, “particularly in assessing the status of people born outside the U.S.” The tool doesn’t always reflect when people became naturalized citizens and DHS has had to correct information sent to multiple states after SAVE misidentified voters as noncitizens, the report said.

    SAVE doesn’t have access to all potential data that could show whether someone is a citizen, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services told PolitiFact in a statement.

    When the tool flags people who say they are citizens, the agency said it manually checks for inconsistencies before sending results back to the state for review.

    Data from the Social Security Administration can be outdated for naturalized citizens because the agency has historically relied on people to voluntarily report citizenship changes in person, creating significant lags. 

    “This data will be reliably stale and will target naturalized citizens for undue suspicion,” Danielle
    Lang, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of voting rights, previously told PolitiFact. The center was one of the groups that sued the administration over Trump’s executive order.

    The Social Security Administration started noting citizenship in its data 40 years ago, so the agency doesn’t have a complete database, according to the Institute for Responsive Government, an organization that provides governments with research, including about election infrastructure.

    Because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services merged a massive amount of data from multiple agencies, the new features require testing and validation, the institute said in May, recommending election officials process carefully when using the tool. 

    “Data of unknown or unverified quality must not be used to initiate voter removals without strict adherence to all safeguards in state and federal law,” the institute said. 

    What can naturalized citizens do if they are flagged?

    The voter removal process varies by state. If a voter is flagged as ineligible in Florida, state statute says local election officials must notify them by mail within seven days explaining why they were identified. The notice must include a request for a response within 30 days, after which the person will be removed from the voter registration system.

    Eligible voters wrongly flagged by the system must provide documentation of their citizenship or request a formal hearing to contest the findings. 

    For naturalized citizens, valid proof of citizenship includes a U.S. passport, a certificate of naturalization or citizenship. U.S. citizens who were born outside the country would need to show a consular report of birth abroad, a State Department document certifying a child born abroad to U.S. citizen parents acquired citizenship at birth.

    RELATED: Trump administration overhauls database for election officials to check voters’ citizenship status

    PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Reddit, Meta, and Google Voluntarily Gave DHS Info of Anti-ICE Users, Report Says

    [ad_1]

    Reddit, Meta, and Google voluntarily “complied with some of the requests” for identifying details of users critical of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent as part of a recent wave of administrative subpoenas the Department of Homeland Security has been distributing to Big Tech the past few months, according to an anonymously sourced New York Times report.

    Those three companies, plus Discord, have received “hundreds” of such requests that have come from DHS recently. Meta, it should be noted, is the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp.

    Administrative subpoenas used for this purpose represent an escalation. This tool, which comes not from a judge but from DHS itself, was formerly reserved for situations like child abductions, according to the Times.

    The users were targeted because their posts “criticized ICE or pointed to the locations of ICE agents,” the Times says.

    A Google spokesperson replied to the Times with a statement, saying “When we receive a subpoena, our review process is designed to protect user privacy while meeting our legal obligations,” and “We inform users when their accounts have been subpoenaed, unless under legal order not to or in an exceptional circumstance. We review every legal demand and push back against those that are overbroad.”

    Gizmodo requested comment from Meta, Discord, and Reddit. We will update if we hear back.

    According to the Times, one or multiple of the relevant companies have stated that they notify users of these requests from DHS, and give them a 14-day window to “fight the subpoena in court” before complying.

    Amazon has also been accused of at least some degree of participation with ICE’s ongoing mass deportation efforts. In October, Amazon-owned Ring announced a partnership with Flock that would loop the AI-powered network into the content coming from users’ doorbell cameras. According to a 404 Media investigation, that network feeds information to law enforcement agencies at the local and federal levels, allowing for reasonable concern that ICE has access to all that footage.

    Protesters have launched an effort called “Resist and Unsubscribe” targeting ten tech companies they perceive as exceptionally supportive of ICE. That list includes Meta, Google, and Amazon, but not Reddit.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • US spent $40M to deport roughly 300 migrants to nations other than their own: Democratic report

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration spent at least $40 million to deport roughly 300 migrants to countries other than their own as immigration officials expanded the practice over the last year to carry out President Donald Trump’s goals of quickly removing immigrants from the U.S., according to a report compiled by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    The Democrats on the Foreign Relations panel, led by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, criticize the practice of third country deportations as “costly, wasteful and poorly monitored” in the report and call for “serious scrutiny of a policy that now operates largely in the dark.”

    The State Department, which oversees the negotiations to implement the programs, has stood behind the practice of third country deportations and defended it as a part of Trump’s campaign to end illegal immigration.

    “We’ve arrested people that are members of gangs and we’ve deported them. We don’t want gang members in our country,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded when asked about some of the third country deportations at a Senate hearing last month.

    The report, which is the first congressional review of the agreements, found lump sum payments ranging between $4.7 million and $7.5 million to five countries – Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini and Palau – to deport migrants to those nations. El Salvador has received about 250 Venezuelan nationals in March last year, while the other nations received far fewer deportees, ranging from 29 sent to Equatorial Guinea to none sent to Palau so far, according to the report.

    The nations examined in the report are just a fraction of the Trump administration’s overall work to deport migrants to third countries. According to internal administration documents reviewed by The Associated Press, there are 47 third-country agreements at various stages of negotiation. Of those, 15 have been concluded and 10 are at or near conclusion.

    The administration is also negotiating agreements with countries that will accept U.S. asylum seekers while their asylum claims are processed, according to the internal documents. There are 17 that are at various stages of negotiation, including 9 that have formally taken effect, although the administration claims that the agreements do not necessarily need to be concluded for people to be sent there.

    Immigration advocacy groups have criticized the “third country” policy as a reckless tactic that violates due process rights and can strand deportees in countries with long histories of human rights violations and corruption.

    During a visit to South Sudan, Democratic committee staff found a gated house with armed guards where deportees were held, including migrants from Vietnam and Mexico.

    The Democrats also largely take aim at how wasteful and ineffective the policy may be. It details several instances of migrants being deported to a third country, only for the U.S. to later pay for another flight to return the migrant to their home country.

    “In many cases, migrants could have been returned directly to their countries of origin, avoiding unnecessary flights and additional costs,” said Shaheen in a statement also signed by Democratic Sens. Chris Coons, Tammy Duckworth, Tim Kaine, Jack Rosen and Chris Van Hollen.

    It also remains unclear what benefits the countries may receive – or expect – in return for accepting third-country nationals.

    After an agreement was in place last year, South Sudan sent a list of requests to Washington that included American support for the prosecution of an opposition leader and sanctions relief for a senior official accused of diverting over a billion dollars in public funds, according to diplomatic communications made public by the State Department in January.

    Shaheen has also questioned a $7.5 million payment sent to Equatorial Guinea that came at the same time the Trump administration was developing ties with the country’s vice president, Teodoro “Teddy” Nguema Obiang. He is notorious among world leaders accused of corruption for a lavish lifestyle that has attracted the attention of prosecutors in several countries.

    Copyright © 2026 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link

  • Homeland Security Shutdown Seems Certain As Funding Talks Between White House And Democrats Stall – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security appeared certain Thursday as lawmakers in the House and Senate were set to leave Washington for a 10-day break and negotiations with the White House over Democrats’ demands for new restrictions had stalled.

    Democrats and the White House have traded offers in recent days as the Democrats have said they want curbs on President Donald Trump’s broad campaign of immigration enforcement. They have demanded better identification for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal law enforcement officers, a new code of conduct for those agencies and more use of judicial warrants, among other requests.

    The White House sent its latest proposal late Wednesday, but Trump told reporters on Thursday that some of the Democratic demands would be “very, very hard to approve.”

    Democrats said the White House offer, which was not made public, did not include sufficient curbs on ICE after two protesters were fatally shot last month. The offer was “not serious,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday, after the Senate rejected a bill to fund the department.

    Americans want accountability and “an end to the chaos,” Schumer said. “The White House and congressional Republicans must listen and deliver.”

    Lawmakers in both chambers were on notice to return to Washington if the two sides struck a deal to end the expected shutdown. Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters that Democrats would send the White House a counterproposal over the weekend.

    Impact of a shutdown
    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said after the vote that a shutdown appeared likely and “the people who are not going to be getting paychecks” will pay the price.

    The impact of a DHS shutdown is likely to be minimal at first. It would not likely block any of the immigration enforcement operations, as Trump’s tax and spending cut bill passed last year gave ICE about $75 billion to expand detention capacity and bolster enforcement operations.

    But the other agencies in the department — including the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard — could take a bigger hit over time.

    Gregg Phillips, an associate administrator at FEMA, said at a hearing this week that its disaster relief fund has sufficient balances to continue emergency response activities during a shutdown, but would become seriously strained in the event of a catastrophic disaster.

    Phillips said that while the agency continues to respond to threats like flooding and winter storms, long-term planning and coordination with state and local partners will be “irrevocably impacted.”

    Trump defends officer masking
    Trump, who has remained largely silent during the bipartisan talks, noted Thursday that a recent court ruling rejected a ban on masks for federal law enforcement officers.

    “We have to protect our law enforcement,” Trump told reporters.

    Democrats made the demands for new restrictions on ICE and other federal law enforcement after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

    Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law last week. That package extended Homeland Security funding at current levels only through Friday.

    Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York have said they want immigration officers to remove their masks, to show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

    Democrats also say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests and require that before a person can be detained, authorities have verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

    Thune suggested there were potential areas of compromise, including on masks. There could be contingencies “that these folks aren’t being doxed,” Thune said. “I think they could find a landing place.”

    But Republicans have been largely opposed to most of the items on the Democrats’ list, including a prohibition on masks.

    Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said Republicans who have pushed for stronger immigration enforcement would benefit politically from the Democratic demands.

    “So if they want to have that debate, we’ll have that debate all they want,” said Schmitt.

    Judicial warrants a sticking point
    Thune, who has urged Democrats and the White House to work together, indicated that another sticking point is judicial warrants.

    “The issue of warrants is going to be very hard for the White House or for Republicans,” Thune said of the White House’s most recent offer. “But I think there are a lot of other areas where there has been give, and progress.”

    Schumer and Jeffries have said DHS officers should not be able to enter private property without a judicial warrant and that warrant procedures and standards should be improved. They have said they want an end to “roving patrols” of agents who are targeting people in the streets and in their homes.

    Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants. Those are internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific person but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent. Traditionally, only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.

    But an internal ICE memo obtained by The Associated Press last month authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections.

    Far from agreement
    Thune, R-S.D., said were “concessions” in the White House offer. He would not say what those concessions were, though, and he acknowledged the sides were “a long ways toward a solution.”

    Schumer said it was not enough that the administration had announced an end to the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that led to thousands of arrests and the fatal shootings of two protesters.

    “We need legislation to rein in ICE and end the violence,” Schumer said, or the actions of the administration “could be reversed tomorrow on a whim.”

    Simmering partisan tensions played out on the Senate floor immediately after the vote, as Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security funding, tried to pass a two-week extension of Homeland Security funding and Democrats objected.

    Britt said Democrats were “posturing” and that federal employees would suffer for it. “I’m over it!” she yelled.

    Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland spending subcommittee, responded that Democrats “want to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but only a department that is obeying the law.”

    “This is an exceptional moment in this country’s history,” Murphy said.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • 2026 Government Shutdown: Latest News and Impact on ICE

    [ad_1]

    Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    One of the most confusing federal-government shutdowns in living memory began at midnight on January 31 when the stopgap-spending authority that ended the last government shutdown in November ran out. The shutdown was triggered by Democratic fury (and Republican misgivings) over ICE and Border Patrol atrocities in Minneapolis. But Congress had to unravel and end the shutdown before it could begin serious negotiations on new guidelines for immigration enforcement.

    The Departments of Defense, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and State — along with the department that supervises immigration enforcement, Homeland Security — shut down on Friday night. Other agencies remained open because spending bills affecting them passed both houses of Congress before the Minneapolis crisis began.

    But the partial shutdown will end later today after two close votes in the House approved a Senate bill to reopen all government departments other than DHS. That agency will receive stopgap spending authority until February 13 to allow for very difficult negotiations over immigration enforcement policies and tactics.

    Here’s how we got here and what we know about what will happen next:

    The current crisis began when the House combined six regular appropriations bills into one huge package after allowing a separate vote over DHS funding as protests against ICE were breaking out around the country (it passed narrowly with just seven Democratic votes). The House then adjourned, hoping to “jam” the Senate into approving the whole package and keeping the government fully open.

    But after Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti, Senate Democrats withheld the votes needed to clear the spending package, demanding reforms in immigration enforcement. As the January 30 deadline approached, the White House became engaged in the dispute and cut a deal with Chuck Schumer to provide a separate two-week stopgap-spending bill for DHS to allow for further negotiations and pass the rest of the appropriations. This arrangement cleared the Senate late on January 30, with most Republicans and about half the Democrats going along. Because the earlier House package was changed by the Senate, the Trump-Schumer deal went back to the House for its approval. In the meantime, the affected federal departments had to shut down.

    The House wasn’t privy to the Trump-Schumer deal, and there was grumbling over it in both party caucuses. House Democrats are sensitive to the explosion of grassroots anger at the Senate Democrats who failed to use their leverage to either force major ICE reforms in exchange for keeping the government open, or to defund ICE altogether. Hardcore conservative House Republicans are upset about a rumored White House “pivot” away from total support for aggressive ICE tactics. Some wanted to attach provocative anti-immigrant conditions to the Senate deal, like measures to defund “sanctuary cities” or a forced Senate vote on the SAVE Act, which would impose new citizenship-ID requirements for voting. Democrats made it clear such amendments would be unacceptable poison pills that would extend the shutdown indefinitely.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson had hoped to get around these grumbling factions with a quick vote right after the House reconvened on Monday to approve the Senate deal under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote. But in recognition of the divisions in his own ranks, and likely annoyed that he was left out of the Trump-Schumer negotiations, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries informed Johnson that he couldn’t promise the requisite number of votes to make the suspension of the rules feasible.

    So Johnson was forced to go through the laborious process of getting a vote set up via House passage of the “rule” for consideration of the Senate deal. By ancient tradition, the minority party won’t vote for the majority’s “rule,” so the Speaker was forced to obtain must virtually every Republican vote for it. By all accounts, Trump spent Monday twisting arms and quelling dissent. House Freedom Caucus types asked for and probably received assurances from Trump that he won’t back down too much on ICE or on mass deportation generally if and when negotiations on the DHS spending bill ever happen. The rule passed by one vote with just one Republican (Thomas Massie) dissenting.

    Passage of the rule brought the Senate deal to the House floor, where it passed by a 217-214 vote, with 21 Democrats voting for it (mostly outspoken “moderates” and some very senior members in safe seats) and 21 Republicans voting against it (mostly House Freedom Caucus members). It looks like Johnson figured out how many Democrats he could get to vote for the bill and gave an identical number of Republicans a “free vote” to oppose it. The outcome showed that nobody really wantsed the partial shutdown to continue, but everyone is aware that once everything other than the DHS bill is resolved, Democratic leverage to secure restraints on immigration-enforcement agents will be reduced significantly. Trump will sign the bill momentarily and the shutdown will officially end.

    Absolutely not. Negotiations haven’t begun, and there are signs of a deepening partisan rift on the subject. Senate Democrats announced a list of substantive demands prior to the Trump-Schumer procedural deal that included a requirement for judicial warrants before ICE–Border Patrol arrests; coordination with local law enforcement (and deference to their use-of-force rules); and an end to masking. Any or all of these demands could be deal-breakers with the White House, aside from whatever additional demands House Democrats insist upon.

    We’ll know soon enough: The Senate-passed CR for DHS expires on February 13. If no substantive deal is struck that can get through both Houses and and also secure Trump’s signature, the options are either another CR to allow more time for negotiations or a new shutdown of DHS (which includes, in addition to immigration enforcement, agencies like FEMA and the Coast Guard). The only good thing about these scenarios is that at least it will be clear to everyone what the fight’s about.

    This piece has been updated throughout.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Trump Urges House To Vote Quickly To End The Partial Government Shutdown – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump implored the House on Monday to end the partial government shutdown, but neither Republicans nor Democrats appeared ready to quickly approve the federal funding package he brokered with the Senate without first debating their own demands over immigration enforcement operations.

    Democrats are refusing to provide the votes House Speaker Mike Johnson needs to push the package forward as they try to rein in the Trump administration’s deportation operations after the shooting deaths of two Americans in Minneapolis. That’s forcing Johnson to rely on his slim GOP majority, which has its own complaints about the package, to fall in line behind Trump’s deal with Senate Democrats.

    Voting is expected to begin as soon as Tuesday, which would be day four of the partial shutdown. The Pentagon, Homeland Security and other agencies saw their funding lapse Saturday. And while many operations at those departments are deemed essential, and still functioning, some workers may go without pay or be furloughed.

    “We need to get the Government open, and I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join me in supporting this Bill, and send it to my desk WITHOUT DELAY,” the president wrote on social media.

    “There can be NO CHANGES at this time,” Trump insisted. “We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown.”

    The stalemate points to difficult days ahead as Johnson relies on Trump to help muscle the package to passage.

    The president struck a deal last week with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer in which Homeland Security would only be funded temporarily, though Feb. 13, as Congress debates changes to immigration enforcement operations. The Senate overwhelmingly approved the package with the rest of the government funding ahead of Saturday’s deadline.

    Democrats demand changes to ICE
    House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries made it clear Monday that his side sees no reason to help Johnson push the bill forward in a procedural step, something that the majority party typically handles on its own.

    With Johnson facing unrest from his own Republican ranks, Jeffries is seizing the leverage it provides Democrats to demand changes to immigration operations.

    “On rare occasions have we stepped in to deal with Republican dysfunction,” Jeffries said at the Capitol.

    Democrats are demanding restraints on Immigration and Customs Enforcement that go beyond $20 million for body cameras that already is in the bill. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday that officers on the ground in Minneapolis, including ICE, will be immediately issued body-worn cameras, and the program would be expanded nationwide as funding is available.

    But Democrats are pressing for more. They want to require that federal immigration agents unmask — noting that few, if any, other law enforcement agencies routinely mask themselves in the U.S. — and they want officers to rely on judicial, rather than administrative, warrants in their operations.

    They also want an end to roving patrols, amid other changes.

    Jeffries said the administration needs to begin negotiations now, not over the next two weeks, on changes to immigration enforcement operations.

    Certain Democrats, however, are splintering with the leader, and pushing for quicker passage of the funding package to avoid government disruptions.

    Republicans launch their own demands
    At the same time, House Republicans, with some allies in the Senate, are making their own demands, as they work to support Trump’s clampdown on immigrants in the U.S.

    The House Freedom Caucus has insisted on fuller funding for Homeland Security while certain Republicans pushed to include the SAVE Act, a longshot Trump priority that would require proof of citizenship before Americans are eligible to participate in elections and vote. Critics say it would disenfranchise millions of voters.

    Late Monday, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., dropped her demand to attach the voting bill to the funding package after she and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., met with Trump at the White House. She posted afterward that it would be better to try to advance that bill separately through the Senate, and keep the government open.

    The development was seen as helping Johnson push ahead.

    “Obviously the president really wants this,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise said at the Capitol.

    “We always work ’til the midnight hour to get the votes,” Scalise said. “You never start the process with everybody on board. You work through it.”

    Workers without pay if partial government shutdown drags on
    Meanwhile, a number of federal agencies are snared in the funding standoff after the government went into a partial shutdown over the weekend.

    Defense, health, transportation and housing are among those that were given shutdown guidance by the administration, though many operations are deemed essential and services are not necessarily interrupted. Workers could go without pay if the impasse drags on. Some could be furloughed.

    Lawmakers from both parties are increasingly concerned the closure will disrupt the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which they rely on to help constituents after deadly snowstorms and other disasters.

    This is the second time in a matter of months that federal government operations have been disrupted as lawmakers use the annual funding process as leverage to extract policy changes. Last fall, Democrats sparked what became the longest federal shutdown in history, 43 days, as they protested the expiration of health insurance tax breaks.

    That shutdown ended with a promise to vote on proposals to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. But with GOP opposition, Democrats were unable to achieve their goal of keeping the subsidies in place. Insurance premiums spiked in the new year for millions of people.

    Trump tries to prevent another long shutdown
    Trump is already working on an immigration deal to ensure the shutdown doesn’t drag on.

    Johnson said he was in the Oval Office last week when Trump, along with border czar Tom Homan, spoke with Schumer of New York as they discussed the immigration changes.

    Body cameras, which are already provided for in the package, and an end to the roving patrols by immigration agents are areas of potential agreement, Johnson said.

    But Johnson drew a line at other Democratic demands. He said he does not think that requiring immigration officers to remove their masks would have support from Republicans because it could lead to problems if their personal images and private information is posted online by protesters.

    And Senate Majority Leader John Thune tapped the brakes on the demand from Democrats to require judicial warrants for officers’ searches, saying it’s likely to be a part of the negotiations ahead.

    “It’s going to be very difficult to reach agreement in two weeks,” Thune said at the Capitol.

    Democrats, however, said the immigration operations are out of control, and must end in Minneapolis and other cities.

    Growing numbers of lawmakers are also calling for Noem to be fired or impeached.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 10:27 AM PST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    [ad_1]

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    This 13 page document lays out DHS policy for use of force. Now these rules apply to Customs and Border Protection, ICE, and Secret Service and make it clear what protocols agents should follow before any use of force is applied. And while it’s easy to look back and replay video over and over after the fact, experts we talked to told us agents need to rely on these policies and training, especially in critical moments. Unfortunately, It, it’s for me as *** field office director, this all of this is very um upsetting. Darius Reeves, *** former ICE field office director, spent nearly 20 years with ICE and Homeland Security, *** time when he says their operations were not drawing public attention. No one had any idea about ICE. We were very professional, we were very clean, and this is. There are far too many US citizens being involved. What troubles Reeves now isn’t just the outcome of recent encounters, but whether ICE and Border Patrol are following their own use of force and de-escalation policies. When is use of force an option? If it’s an immediate Imminent threat. The National Investigative Unit reviewed the Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy alongside video from the two recent killings of Alex Preddy and Renee Good and talked with experts including Reeves. DHS policy is clear officers should attempt de-escalation, issue verbal commands, reassess when resistance stops, and discontinue force once an incident is under control. Video from the encounter involving 30 seven-year-old Alex Preddy shows in the minute before the shooting, Preddy is recording from *** distance. Agents push *** woman who grabs onto Preddy. He’s then pushed. An agent pushes another woman near Preddy, who then steps in with an open hand up, then turns away from the agent as he’s sprayed with *** chemical. They continually sprayed him even when his back was to them, and then everybody piles on. Based on the video we’ve seen, in your opinion. Was deadly force used correctly on Alex Peretti? Absolutely not. The second case involving Renee Good raises *** different policy question. DHS rules place strict limits on the use of deadly force in and around vehicles. Mark Brown used to train ICE agents and explains the strict rules. The general practice was that They went away from shooting in the moving vehicles. Reeves and Brown add that incidents need to be carefully examined afterward to prevent future violations. Are we debriefing every day after, you know, to see, OK, what are we doing for our own accountability? This is *** major travesty, um. And you, you’re going to have to stick to the policy. The DHS policy states that every agent must be trained in use of force and de-escalation policies at least once *** year, and every 2 years they must conduct less than lethal force training. The policy we reviewed was last updated in 2023. Reporting in Washington, I’m national investigative correspondent John Cardinelli.

    Judge says she won’t halt Minnesota immigration enforcement surge as a lawsuit proceeds

    The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope

    Updated: 1:27 PM EST Jan 31, 2026

    Editorial Standards ⓘ

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policiesA federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.”Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) —

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Video above: Examining DHS use-of-force policies

    A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

    Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

    It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

    The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

    The federal government argued that the surge, dubbed Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

    “Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media Saturday to laud the ruling, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department on X.

    Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis: Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Johnson signs order directing CPD to investigate federal immigration agents’ alleged misconduct

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO (WLS) — Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order on Saturday morning, directing Chicago police to investigate any alleged illegal activity by federal immigration agents.

    During the signing, Johnson said the city must prepare for federal agents to potentially return to Chicago in the spring.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    Under the “ICE On Notice” order, if CPD personnel observe or receive reports of alleged violations of state or local law by federal agents, they must:

    • Document federal enforcement activities in accordance with CPD policy;


    • Ensure that any body camera footage captured during the incident – including footage of any use of force, detentions, injuries, or other enforcement activity – is
      preserved;


    • Seek to identify the federal supervisory officer on scene, attempt to verify the supervisory officer’s name and badge number, and record the credential verification using body-cameras-including any refusal to comply;


    • Complete a report on any violation of state or local law by federal agents consistent with CPD policy;


    • Immediately summon emergency medical services and render aid to any injured person on the scene

    CPD must also provide any evidence of alleged felony violations to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, the order states. Additionally, CPD must share data on federal immigration officers’ alleged legal violations with the pubic.

    Johnson’s office says his executive order makes Chicago “the first city in the nation to leverage local authority to pursue legal accountability for misconduct by federal immigration agents.”

    “Nobody is above the law. There is no such thing as ‘absolute immunity’ in America,” Johnson said in a statement. “The lawlessness of Trump’s militarized immigration agents puts the lives and well-being of every Chicagoan in immediate danger. With today’s order, we are putting ICE on notice in our city. Chicago will not sit idly by while Trump floods federal agents into our communities and terrorizes our residents.”

    Copyright © 2026 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WLS

    Source link

  • Report card for the City’s snow removal effort?

    [ad_1]

    Saturday, January 31, 2026 4:45PM

    6abc Studios (WPVI) — Host Brian Taff and the Panel will speak about the possibility of Federal ICE agents coming to Philadelphia, Senator John Fetterman’s stance on DHS funding, Governor Shapiro’s ambition to run for President as he debuts his new book, Republican Challenger Stacy Garrity gets an endorsement from President Trump and what’s the report card for Philadelphia’s snow removal effort. Get the Inside Story with Melissa Robbins, Larry Platt, Christine Flowers and Guy Ciarrocchi.

    Copyright © 2026 WPVI-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Brian Taff

    Source link

  • Judge set to hear arguments on Minnesota’s immigration crackdown after fatal shootings

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. Saturday’s shooting by a Border Patrol officer of Alex Pretti has only added urgency to the case.Since the original filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request. They’re trying to restore the state of affairs that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge on Dec. 1.The hearing is set for Monday morning in federal court in Minneapolis. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he plans to personally attend.They’re asking that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez order federal law enforcement agencies to reduce the numbers of officers and agents in Minnesota to levels before the surge, while allowing them to continue to enforce immigration laws within a long list of proposed limits.Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.Ellison said at a news conference Sunday that he and the cities filed their lawsuit because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”It wasn’t clear ahead of the hearing when the judge might rule.The case also has implications for other states that have been or could be targets of intensive federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.”If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.Menendez is the same judge who ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who are following and observing agents.An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, late Saturday issued an order blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.“The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

    MINNEAPOLIS —

    A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on whether she should at least temporarily halt the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.

    The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. Saturday’s shooting by a Border Patrol officer of Alex Pretti has only added urgency to the case.

    Since the original filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their original request. They’re trying to restore the state of affairs that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge on Dec. 1.

    The hearing is set for Monday morning in federal court in Minneapolis. Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he plans to personally attend.

    They’re asking that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez order federal law enforcement agencies to reduce the numbers of officers and agents in Minnesota to levels before the surge, while allowing them to continue to enforce immigration laws within a long list of proposed limits.

    Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous” and said “Minnesota wants a veto over federal law enforcement.” They asked the judge to reject the request or at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.

    Ellison said at a news conference Sunday that he and the cities filed their lawsuit because of “the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that we’re looking at right now. No one can remember a time when we’ve seen something like this.”

    It wasn’t clear ahead of the hearing when the judge might rule.

    The case also has implications for other states that have been or could be targets of intensive federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.

    “If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere,” the attorneys general wrote.

    Menendez is the same judge who ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including people who are following and observing agents.

    An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturday’s shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing. The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.

    In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, late Saturday issued an order blocking the Trump administration from “destroying or altering evidence” related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect. A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.

    “The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. “But now, this is what we have to do.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal Agents Kill ICU Nurse in Minneapolis

    [ad_1]

    A man who was killed by federal agents in Minneapolis Saturday was an Intensive Care Unit nurse at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, family members have confirmed. Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old, Illinois-born US citizen, was a Boy Scout who grew up in Green Bay, Wisconsin, his father, Michael Pretti told the Associated Press. “He thought it was terrible, you know, kidnapping children, just grabbing people off the street,” the senior Pretti said. “He cared about those people, and he knew it was wrong, so he did participate in protests.”

    According to local broadcast station KTTC, Pretti was shot at around 9 a.m. local time in the Whittier neighborhood of Minneapolis. Video of the incident (warning: the video is graphic) shows a man being wrestled to the ground by a crowd of masked men in tactical gear. At least one of the men appear to shoot the man once he was on the ground.

    Via X, the Department of Homeland Security claims that the man had “a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun” and “two magazines” in his possession. “Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots,” the DHS said of the incident.

    Minnesota is an open carry state, which means that a properly permitted person is allowed to have a visible firearm in their possession in most public places. According to Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara, Pretti was a “lawful gun owner with a permit to carry.” According to the AP, he had no history of criminal activity.

    The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, a lobbying group that opposes gun restrictions, has issued a statement critical of the DHS’s characterization of the shooting victim. “Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms — including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” chair Bryan Strawser said. “These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed, and they must be respected and protected at all times.”

    At a news conference Saturday afternoon, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz took issue with the DHS account of the homicide. “Thank God we have video because, according to DHS, these seven heroic guys took on an onslaught of a battalion against them or something,” Walz said. “It’s nonsense, people. It is nonsense, and it’s lies … The American public knows, and this needs to be the event that says enough.”

    As of 4 p.m. local time, protestors have continued to gather in the area to protest today’s homicide, which is the third shooting by federal agents in Minneapolis in recent weeks. On January 7, Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent while seated in her SUV; on January 15 agents shot a man in the leg, reportedly after a car chase.

    Complicating the issue are federal officials that are reportedly blocking a local investigation into the slaying. Speaking with CNN, O’Hara says that “federal officials [have] attempted to prevent local police from accessing the scene.” Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans confirmed the conflict between agencies, saying that even with a search warrant, federal officials denied them access, and has refused to provide investigators with the names of the federal agents involved in the shooting.

    “I attempted to contact the individual that I was told was the overall commander at the scene, and I have not received a call back from them,” Evans said at a Saturday news conference.

    [ad_2]

    Eve Batey

    Source link

  • Vancouver City Council Denounces Federal Immigration Enforcement Practices – KXL

    [ad_1]

    VANCOUVER, WA – The Vancouver City Council on Tuesday issued a sweeping Public Declaration on Community Harm, Public Safety, and Human Dignity, formally denouncing the conduct of federal immigration enforcement agencies operating under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    The declaration outlines the City’s position that certain federal immigration enforcement practices have caused harm to community members, undermined public trust, and threatened the safety and dignity of residents. In adopting the statement, councilmembers affirmed their intention to respond to what they described as a crisis using the full force of the City’s legal authority.

    According to the declaration, the City views aggressive or opaque enforcement actions as creating fear among immigrant communities, discouraging residents from accessing essential services or cooperating with local authorities. The council emphasized that these outcomes run counter to local public safety goals and the City’s commitment to human rights and community well-being.

    The document also signals Vancouver’s intent to review and, where permissible, limit cooperation between city agencies and federal immigration enforcement bodies. City leaders indicated that any such actions would be guided by existing law, with an emphasis on protecting civil liberties while maintaining public safety.

    Councilmembers framed the declaration as both a policy statement and a call to action, underscoring the City’s responsibility to advocate for residents affected by federal enforcement practices. The declaration does not alter federal authority but asserts the City’s stance and its willingness to use legal tools available at the municipal level to mitigate local impacts.

    City officials said the declaration reflects ongoing concerns raised by residents and community organizations and reaffirmed Vancouver’s commitment to dignity, safety, and equal treatment for all who live and work in the city.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • As ICE cracks down harder, support for abolishing ICE surges

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump was reelected to the presidency in 2024 after pledging to carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history.” In the first year of his second term, he followed through on his promise, weaponizing the agencies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and deploying thousands of federal troops into major U.S. cities like an occupying army.

    Earlier this month, the death of Renee Good at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer Jonathan Ross brought overly aggressive federal law enforcement into public view. As a result, more Americans than ever now think we should get rid of it.

    “More Americans now support the abolishment of ICE, in a major change since July and in Donald Trump’s first presidency,” Forbes‘ Mike Stunson wrote last week, “as the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal officer has led to a wave of backlash against the agency.”

    Stunson cited a January 2026 poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov, which found that 46 percent of respondents support abolishing ICE, with 43 percent opposed. The same poll found 50 percent felt Good’s shooting was “not justified,” while only 30 percent said it was justified.

    A separate poll by Civiqs found 43 percent of respondents support ending ICE, with 49 percent opposed. Notably, though, this represents a dramatic shift since only a few months ago. In September 2024, only 19 percent supported, and 66 percent opposed, abolishing the agency.

    It was also the highest number in favor of abolition, and the lowest number against, since Civiqs began asking the question in July 2018, when the #AbolishICE movement began in earnest. (At that time, respondents favored keeping the agency intact by a 2–to–1 margin.)

    And an Associated Press/NORC poll shows 61 percent of Americans now oppose Trump’s handling of immigration; as recently as March 2025, respondents were evenly split.

    The reason for the shift is clear: Americans are suddenly confronted with the reality of what ICE is doing, and they don’t like what they see.

    “Trump has deployed 3,000 federal officers and agents to Minneapolis this month, the largest operation in DHS history,” Nick Miroff wrote last week in The Atlantic. “Many of the ICE officers and Border Patrol agents are outfitted in tactical gear and wear body armor and masks, and they’re using the technological tools that the department acquired to protect the country’s borders: surveillance drones, facial-recognition apps, phone-cracking software. Powered by billions of dollars in new funding, they are making immigration arrests and grabbing protesters who try to stop them.”

    In August 2025, ICE announced a major recruitment push, offering perks like a $90,000 salary and a signing bonus of as much as $50,000. DHS recently announced that in just four months, ICE more than doubled its ranks, from 10,000 to 22,000.

    Those numbers may not be accurate: NOTUS‘ Jackie Llanos writes that according to the government’s official employment statistics, since Trump took office in January 2025, ICE “has hired 7,114 employees” but 1,746 have left in the same period, “placing the net growth of employees at 5,368.”

    Still, a 50 percent increase in one year is substantial. And such a quick expansion doesn’t come without tradeoffs: “ICE reduced training requirements to meet hiring targets,” Military.com reports, “though the agency has not been transparent about the criteria used to determine which recruits qualified for abbreviated training pipelines or how those changes were evaluated internally.”

    For example, NBC News’ Julia Ainsley reports that due to a technical glitch, about 200 recruits with no law enforcement experience were placed in a fast-tracked training process for experienced officers.

    The results are plain to see: ICE officers assaulting U.S. citizens, smashing windows and dragging them from their cars, going door-to-door without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion. In October, ProPublica reported ICE had arrested at least 170 Americans—in many cases using considerable force—including some who were detained for multiple days without being allowed to contact their families or an attorney.

    Ross was apparently even recording Good with his cellphone when he pulled his weapon and shot her. Soon after her death, media outlets released the footage; the shooting is not depicted, but afterward, someone can be heard saying, “Fucking bitch.”

    Social media is full of videos of ICE raids gone wrong, but the government has also saturated the internet with footage of its own.

    “During President Donald Trump’s second term, ICE’s public affairs arm has rapidly transformed into an influencer-style media machine, churning out flashy videos of tactical operations and immigration raids,” The Washington Post reported last month. Citing internal chat logs, the Post added that this team “coordinate[s] with the White House” to generate “brash content showing immigrants being chased, grabbed and detained” with “video edits that might help legitimize the administration’s aggressive stance.”

    “In President Trump’s second term, content is governing and governing is content,” added NPR.

    This may explain why Ross was filming Good when he drew his gun and shot her: to create content for social media.

    And much of that content is distasteful: Last month, on its official X account, Trump’s DHS “publicly announce[d] its dream to somehow eliminate 100 million people, the majority of whom would need to be citizens to hit that number, whose ancestry is seen as ‘third world,’” writes Reason‘s Brian Doherty.

    And in recent months, the DHS and ICE have posted recruitment ads with white nationalist imagery—including an Instagram post two days after Good’s death that used a song popular with neo-Nazis.

    It’s clear the more that Americans are exposed to ICE and its methods and tactics, the less they think the agency should continue to exist. And this is not an extreme position: Both ICE and the DHS are quite new, established in the early 2000s.

    And it’s not like either was without controversy, even in the aftermath of 9/11. “There were fears at the time of DHS’s founding, including on the political right, that the government was creating an authoritarian monster,” The Atlantic‘s Miroff added. “The United States had never had the kind of all-encompassing domestic-security apparatus common in autocracies, whose interior departments function as political police. DHS skeptics worried that civil liberties would be vulnerable to abuse if the government began assembling national databases and an expanded federal police force.”

    And yet, that’s exactly what happened. “ICE has routinely shown itself to be an overreaching and unaccountable agency,” Fiona Harrigan wrote in the December 2024 issue of Reason. “Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology found that ICE has scanned the driver’s license photos of one in three American adults and could access the driver’s license data of three in four American adults.”

    “ICE’s current powers and central deportation mission are neither appropriately sized nor easily reformed,” Harrigan added. “It would be much better for the government to extend an olive branch to nonviolent undocumented immigrants, reassign ICE’s useful functions elsewhere, and let the agency go once and for all.”

    “Leaving immigration restrictions more to the states would bring us closer to the Constitution’s original meaning,” agrees George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. “We may not be able to fully restore the original meaning of the Constitution on this score. But abolishing ICE and shifting more law enforcement resources to state and local governments would bring us closer to it. It would also simultaneously curtail ICE abuses and reduce crime.”

    The U.S. went nearly its entire existence without ICE; it could do so again. And the more that Americans become familiar with the agency and see what it does, the more they seem to agree.

    [ad_2]

    Joe Lancaster

    Source link

  • Judge restricts federal officers’ use of tear gas during protests in Minneapolis

    [ad_1]

    In a ruling on Friday, a judge restricted federal officers from detaining or using tear gas against peaceful protesters who are not obstructing authorities in Minneapolis, where demonstrations over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown are expected to continue this weekend. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement responding to the preliminary injunction, “D.H.S. is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”ICE’s tactics have faced criticism from Democratic leaders, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.”What we’re seeing on our streets is unnecessary abuses of force. This is an invasion for the sake of creating chaos by our own federal government,” Frey said on Friday.Both Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are reportedly under investigation. The Justice Department is looking into whether Frey and Walz impeded law enforcement through past public statements, according to the Associated Press. “Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic,” Walz said in a social media post on Friday.”A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a separate post, which didn’t explicitly mention the probe. The warning comes as Minneapolis braces for another weekend of demonstrations. Clashes with protesters have escalated following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in a highly contested incident last week. “While peaceful expression is protected, any actions that harm people, destroy property, or jeopardize public safety will not be tolerated,” Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson said Friday. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump warned that he could invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis in response to protests. “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote on social media Thursday.Trump appeared to walk back that threat, at least for now, while speaking to reporters Friday. “I don’t think there is any reason right now to use it, but if I needed it, I would use it,” Trump said.Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison has said that he would challenge the use of the 19th-century law in court if necessary. He’s already suing to try to stop the recent surge in immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities. DHS says officers have arrested more than 2,500 people as part of its “Metro Surge” operation to date.

    In a ruling on Friday, a judge restricted federal officers from detaining or using tear gas against peaceful protesters who are not obstructing authorities in Minneapolis, where demonstrations over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown are expected to continue this weekend.

    Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement responding to the preliminary injunction, “D.H.S. is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”

    ICE’s tactics have faced criticism from Democratic leaders, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.

    “What we’re seeing on our streets is unnecessary abuses of force. This is an invasion for the sake of creating chaos by our own federal government,” Frey said on Friday.

    Both Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are reportedly under investigation. The Justice Department is looking into whether Frey and Walz impeded law enforcement through past public statements, according to the Associated Press.

    “Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic,” Walz said in a social media post on Friday.

    “A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a separate post, which didn’t explicitly mention the probe.

    The warning comes as Minneapolis braces for another weekend of demonstrations. Clashes with protesters have escalated following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in a highly contested incident last week.

    “While peaceful expression is protected, any actions that harm people, destroy property, or jeopardize public safety will not be tolerated,” Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson said Friday.

    Earlier this week, President Donald Trump warned that he could invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis in response to protests.

    “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote on social media Thursday.

    Trump appeared to walk back that threat, at least for now, while speaking to reporters Friday.

    “I don’t think there is any reason right now to use it, but if I needed it, I would use it,” Trump said.

    Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison has said that he would challenge the use of the 19th-century law in court if necessary. He’s already suing to try to stop the recent surge in immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities. DHS says officers have arrested more than 2,500 people as part of its “Metro Surge” operation to date.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Latest shooting is 17th time immigration officials have fired at civilians in Trump’s second term

    [ad_1]

    I urge anyone that is at the scene to leave immediately. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara urging protesters to go home Wednesday night amid clashes with law enforcement after *** federal officer shot *** man in the leg. The Department of Homeland Security said the subject, *** Venezuelan man who was in the country illegally, fled in his vehicle during *** targeted traffic stop, then crashed into *** parked car and fled on foot. When the officer caught up to him, he allegedly resisted arrest. DHS said two other individuals attacked the officer with *** snow shovel and *** broom handle. During the struggle, the federal agent discharged his weapon, striking one adult male. Tensions rose as protesters gathered at the scene, with *** crowd following agents through the neighborhood. Agents launched pepper balls and what sounded like flashbangs. Smoke hung in the air as officers deployed tear gas canisters, with *** member of the crowd apparently throwing one of the canisters back at agents while still demanding ICE leave the city. Officials, including the mayor, are asking the public to remain peaceful. We cannot counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos. For those that have peacefully protested, I applaud you. For those that are taking the bait, you are not helping. I’m Reed Binion reporting.

    Federal immigration officials have fired gunshots at people in at least 17 different incidents since President Donald Trump began his second term nearly a year ago. In the latest incident, a federal officer shot a man in the leg in Minneapolis on Jan. 14 after he was attacked with a snow shovel and broom handle, according to Homeland Security. Federal officers were conducting a traffic stop, DHS said, when the man crashed into a parked car and fled on foot. As the man and the officer were in a struggle on the ground, two people from a nearby apartment came out with the shovel and broom, according to DHS reports.The latest shooting comes a week after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good less than 10 miles away, sparking widespread protests and fear in the city.A Get the Facts Data Team analysis of data collected by The Trace has found that four people have been killed and at least eight have been injured in the 17 shooting incidents.The number of incidents is likely an undercount, according to The Trace, as not all shootings are publicly reported. Also, others have been killed during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown beyond those killed by guns.Most of the shooting incidents have been in the Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis areas.PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    Federal immigration officials have fired gunshots at people in at least 17 different incidents since President Donald Trump began his second term nearly a year ago.

    In the latest incident, a federal officer shot a man in the leg in Minneapolis on Jan. 14 after he was attacked with a snow shovel and broom handle, according to Homeland Security.

    Federal officers were conducting a traffic stop, DHS said, when the man crashed into a parked car and fled on foot. As the man and the officer were in a struggle on the ground, two people from a nearby apartment came out with the shovel and broom, according to DHS reports.

    The latest shooting comes a week after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good less than 10 miles away, sparking widespread protests and fear in the city.

    A Get the Facts Data Team analysis of data collected by The Trace has found that four people have been killed and at least eight have been injured in the 17 shooting incidents.

    The number of incidents is likely an undercount, according to The Trace, as not all shootings are publicly reported. Also, others have been killed during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown beyond those killed by guns.

    Most of the shooting incidents have been in the Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis areas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Has ICE agent training been reduced to 47 days?

    [ad_1]

    The fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jan. 7 brought more scrutiny on Trump-era training requirements. 

    On CNN’s “State of the Union” Jan. 11, U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., told anchor Jake Tapper the Trump administration had shortened ICE agents’ training time while scaling up its hiring. 

    “Remember we’re beefing up ICE 10,000 more agents,” Warner said. “They are not getting the traditional five months training. Literally, Jake, the training for the ICE agents now is 47 days. Why 47 days? Because Donald Trump is the 47th president.”

    He also used this figure Jan. 8 when talking to a liberal commentator and Jan. 12 on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

    Other lawmakers, social media posts and journalists repeated the same line in the days after ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good. 

    The Trump administration has confirmed to multiple news organizations it shortened the duration of immigration agent training, while taking issue with some outlets’ framing and declining to answer follow-up questions. Neither ICE nor DHS responded to PolitiFact’s queries. We were unable to confirm whether the number of training days is connected to Trump’s status as the 47th president.

    Ross had been a deportation officer with the agency since 2015, The Associated Press reported, so he was subject to earlier, longer training standards. 

    Warner, who did not respond to PolitiFact, said on CNN that the investigation into Good’s killing needed to be completed before people reached conclusions.  

    When Tapper pointed out to Warner that the ICE agent who shot Good “had at least 10 years experience,” Warner said, “So be it, and again that’s why there ought to be an investigation.” 

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement trainees practice shooting a handgun at the indoor firing range at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Brunswick, Ga. on Aug. 21, 2025. (AP)

    Trump’s ICE shortened training, but reports vary on how much

    The training talking point stems from The Atlantic August story “Fast Times at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” Reporter Nick Miroff wrote that training for new deportation officers had been reduced from about five months to 47 days, citing three unnamed officials. 

    “Administration officials have cut that time roughly in half, partly by eliminating Spanish-language courses,” the report said. “Academy training was shortened to 47 days, three officials told me, the number picked because Trump is the 47th president. DHS officials said the training will run six days a week for eight weeks.” 

    A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that The Atlantic’s reporting was “false,” because training is eight weeks. The Examiner story, however, cited ICE acting director Todd Lyons as confirming an eight-week training schedule of six work days per week. That amounts to 48 training days.

    The frequently asked questions page on ICE’s career website reflects the outdated training schedule, saying new deportation officers will complete almost five months of training — five weeks of language and 16 weeks of law enforcement.

    The AP in August reported the agency “cut Spanish-language requirements to reduce training by five weeks,” citing Caleb Vitello, who runs ICE training. Vitello told AP the Spanish-language training that was cut would be supplemented with translation technology services.

    News organizations and administration officials have reported training times shorter than 48 days in recent months:

    • An unnamed DHS official told NBC News in October that ICE had originally shortened its training from 13 to eight weeks before shortening it again to six weeks.

    • Government Executive, a news outlet that covers federal agencies, reported Jan. 5 that DHS has shortened ICE agent training from six months “to around six weeks.” 

    DHS has not offered clarity about new officer training since the Minneapolis shooting. A senior DHS official told People magazine Jan. 8, “Training to become an Enforcement and Removal Operations officer is 8 weeks long,” and declined to specify the number of days. 

    “The official did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for clarification, since eight weeks matches the timeframe that The Atlantic previously reported,” it reported. 

    Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement speaks to the press on the agility course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Brunswick, Ga. on Aug. 21, 2025. (AP)

    ICE officer who shot Good had 10 years experience, additional training 

    Having worked for ICE for a decade, Ross would have followed the previous 16-week training schedule and five-week language program. 

    Ross also received specialized training after being selected for ICE’s special response team, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told AP. 

    Before becoming an ICE agent, Ross served in the Indiana National Guard and was deployed to Iraq and also worked as a Border Patrol field intelligence officer.

    Our ruling

    Warner said immigration agents “are not getting the traditional five months training. … The training for the ICE agents now is 47 days.”

    News outlets and Homeland Security officials reported cuts to the length of ICE training during Trump’s second term, reducing it from about five months to six days a week for eight weeks. That’s 48 days of training over a 56-day period. (What it has to do with Trump’s status as 47th president is outside of the scope of this fact-check.) Ross, the ICE officer who shot and killed Good, had been with the department for about 10 years.

    Two news organizations have since reported that the duration of training was further reduced to about six weeks; spokespersons from DHS and ICE did not respond to our requests for confirmation.

    In the big picture, ICE officers’ training time has been significantly shortened to a period at or near what Warner cites. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.

    RELATED: Experts question Kristi Noem calling Renee Good a ‘domestic terrorist.’ Here’s what it means 

    RELATED: Viral AI images spur false claims about ICE agent in fatal Minneapolis shooting

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Anti-ICE protests erupt across the country after shootings

    [ad_1]

    Protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown erupted across the United States this weekend, including outside the White House, following two recent shootings involving immigration officers.A border officer wounded two people in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday. In a separate event on Wednesday, an ICE agent fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis, where thousands marched on Saturday. Minnesota leaders urged demonstrators to remain peaceful after several protesters were arrested on Friday. The Trump administration insists that federal officers acted in self-defense in both shootings. The Department of Homeland Security is not backing down from what it has called its biggest-ever immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities. The agency highlighted the arrest of “criminal illegal aliens” in social media posts on Saturday. Meanwhile, the administration faces pushback from Democrats and certain Republicans on Capitol Hill. Critics are calling for a full, objective investigation into the Minneapolis shooting after state officials were left out of the probe.Some Democrats are calling to impeach DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, while others want to restrict funding for her department and add further restrictions on federal agents.Cellphone video below from the ICE agent who shot Renee Good shows the moments before and during the shooting. Viewer discretion is advised.

    WASHINGTON —

    Protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown erupted across the United States this weekend, including outside the White House, following two recent shootings involving immigration officers.

    A border officer wounded two people in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday. In a separate event on Wednesday, an ICE agent fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis, where thousands marched on Saturday.

    Minnesota leaders urged demonstrators to remain peaceful after several protesters were arrested on Friday.

    The Trump administration insists that federal officers acted in self-defense in both shootings.

    The Department of Homeland Security is not backing down from what it has called its biggest-ever immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities. The agency highlighted the arrest of “criminal illegal aliens” in social media posts on Saturday.

    Meanwhile, the administration faces pushback from Democrats and certain Republicans on Capitol Hill. Critics are calling for a full, objective investigation into the Minneapolis shooting after state officials were left out of the probe.

    Some Democrats are calling to impeach DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, while others want to restrict funding for her department and add further restrictions on federal agents.

    Cellphone video below from the ICE agent who shot Renee Good shows the moments before and during the shooting. Viewer discretion is advised.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DC Council committee recommends dissolving cooperation with ICE – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    A D.C. Council committee recommends police end cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a day after an ICE agent reportedly shot a woman in Minneapolis.

    A D.C. Council committee is recommending the city’s police department end cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one day after officials say an ICE agent fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

    The recommendation also comes after council members heard testimony from dozens of residents in October.

    “I’m grieving for Minneapolis, and I’m also very worried that that could very easily happen here, with the heavy presence of ICE and other federal law enforcement,” Ward 1 Council member Brianne Nadeau told WTOP.

    The Committee on Public Works and Operations heard from 53 witnesses who detailed accounts with ICE in the city.

    “We had countless testimony of people who observed men and women walking down the street being stopped, people on the way to work being pulled over,” Nadeau said. “They’re being taken and their vehicles are being left on the road, parents being taken in front of their children and the children being left behind.”

    The report from the Committee on Public Works and Operations recommends both the mayor and D.C. police chief end any cooperation with ICE. It also urges banning the use of masks by ICE agents and requiring badges and agency identification.

    The committee said tweaks to current laws are also needed.

    “We passed the Sanctuary Values Act in 2020; there should be no cooperation with ICE,” Nadeau said. “The chief found a loophole, found a way to cooperate. We’ve got to close that loophole.”

    ICE has said that its collaboration with D.C. police has assisted with the arrest of alleged criminals, including a Mexican national previously charged with sex crimes against a child.

    “MPD has the tools they need to go after someone who committed violence, sexual violence. They don’t need the civil enforcement folks at Homeland Security to back them up on that,” Nadeau said.

    [ad_2]

    Luke Lukert

    Source link

  • After legal setbacks, Trump says he’s dropping National Guard push in Chicago, other cities, for now

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO — President Donald Trump said he’s dropping – for now – his push to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, a move that comes after legal roadblocks hung up the effort.

    Trump said in a social media post Wednesday that he’s removing the Guard troops for now. “We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” he wrote.

    Troops had already left Los Angeles after the president deployed them earlier this year as part of a broader crackdown on crime and immigration. They had been sent to Chicago and Portland but were never on the streets as legal challenges played out.

    The video in the player above is from a previous report.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    The Supreme Court earlier this month refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown, a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities.

    The justices declined the Republican administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act.

    Three justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – publicly dissented.

    The high court order is not a final ruling but it could affect other lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in other Democratic-led cities.

    “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the decision to keep the Chicago deployment blocked, but would have left the president more latitude to deploy troops in possible future scenarios.

    “The Supreme Court essentially has said two things here. It said that the president can federalize deploy the National Guard, but only if the U.S. military has the authority to enforce the laws in question in the first place and otherwise is unable to enforce them. And the Supreme Court is saying these are not the kinds of laws that the U.S. military is generally authorized to enforce,” said ABC7 Chief Legal Analyst Gill Soffer.

    The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. The conservative-dominated court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

    Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker applauded the decision as a win for the state and country.

    “American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets,” he said.

    White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, on the other hand, said the president had activated the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property from “violent rioters.”

    “Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public,” she said.

    Alito and Thomas said in their dissent that the court had no basis to reject Trump’s contention that the administration needed the troops to enforce immigration laws. Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government based on the declarations of federal law enforcement officials.

    The administration had initially sought the order to allow the deployment of troops from Illinois and Texas, but the Texas contingent of about 200 National Guard troops was later sent home from Chicago.

    The Trump administration has argued that the troops are needed “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    But Perry wrote that she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois and no reason to believe the protests there had gotten in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

    Perry had initially blocked the deployment for two weeks. But in October, she extended the order indefinitely while the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview has been the site of tense protests, where federal agents have previously used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists.

    Last month, authorities arrested 21 protesters and said four officers were injured outside the Broadview facility. Local authorities made the arrests.

    The Illinois case is just one of several legal battles over National Guard deployments.

    “Every one of these cases, when they come down, can have an impact on other cases, even if they’re not technically binding in another jurisdiction on a different set of facts. And they’re usually not. Nevertheless, the principles behind them will apply. And since this is the Supreme Court ruling here, it’s very consequential. And other courts are going to have to follow its lead,” Soffer said.

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul says the court’s ruling could affect other lawsuits challenging the president’s attempt to deploy the military in other Democrat-led cities.

    “We went first before the Supreme Court on this. And so this is an important case not only for the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois, but for the country at large,” Raoul said.

    District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb is suing to halt the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen in the nation’s capital. Forty-five states have entered filings in federal court in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.

    More than 2,200 troops from several Republican-led states remain in Washington, although the crime emergency Trump declared in August ended a month later.

    A federal judge in Oregon has permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there, and all 200 troops from California were being sent home from Oregon, an official said.

    A state court in Tennessee ruled in favor of Democratic officials who sued to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis, which Trump has called a replica of his crackdown on Washington, D.C.

    In California, a judge in September said deployment in the Los Angeles area was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained, and the judge did not order them to leave.

    The Trump administration has appealed the California and Oregon rulings to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    “There’s really no reason to think the government is going to throw up its hands. This is a preliminary ruling. It doesn’t dispose of the case. The government will continue to work this out, I’m sure. Or fight it out on appeal and work its way through the system,” Soffer said.

    The Defense department says outside of Illinois, the president has deployed Guard members to Tennessee, Oregon, California and the nation’s capital. But troops are only actively on the streets in Memphis, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker issued a statement on the ruling, saying, “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy. I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.

    American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets. The brave men and women of our National Guard should never be used for political theater and deserve to be with their families and communities, especially during the holidays, and ready to serve overseas or at home when called upon during times of immense need.

    While we welcome this ruling, we also are clear-eyed that the Trump Administration’s pursuit for unchecked power is continuing across the country. Illinois will remain vigilant, defend the rights of our people, and stand up to further abuses of authority by Donald Trump and his cronies.”

    White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson issued a statement, saying, “The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property. Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda. The Administration will continue working day in and day out to safeguard the American public.”

    Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a statement, saying, “We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling to block the deployment of National Guard personnel to the streets of Chicago, rebuking President Trump’s attempts to militarize and demonize our city.

    I’ve maintained that these threats are unconstitutional from the very beginning. I am encouraged that the Supreme Court shares this view.

    This decision doesn’t just protect Chicago-but protect cities around the country who have been threatened by Trump’s campaign against immigrants and Democratic-led cities.

    We moved swiftly to challenge any deployment in court the moment the president first made his threats. My administration will maintain our commitment to protecting Chicagoans from federal overreach and continue to ensure Donald Trump is held accountable before the law.”

    A Department of Justice spokesperson issued a statement, saying, “The National Guard has been instrumental in President Trump’s historic efforts to reduce crime and protect federal law enforcement as they execute their duties. This Department of Justice remains committed to enforcing our criminal laws and reversing the prior administration’s trend of crime and decline in America’s major cities.”

    Illinois state Rep. and Chairman of the Illinois Freedom Caucus Chris Miller told ABC7 in a statement, “The only people the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of today are illegal immigrants and criminals. JB Pritzker and the Democrats have allowed crime and illegal immigration to rob our citizens of their safety, and their tax dollars. The federal government should intervene by any means necessary. In light of the Christmas season, I would be glad to gift the ‘Republican’ justices in favor of this decision with a spine. I’m sure Santa can get it there by December 25th!”

    Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Sophia Tareen in Chicago contributed to this story.

    ABC7’s Cate Cauguiran contributed to this report.

    Copyright © 2025 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    AP

    Source link