update - USSC strikes down CO's conversion therapy ban 8 - 1
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Watchdog reveals depth of probes into ICE including use of force
The Department of Homeland Security’s independent watchdog revealed multiple ongoing investigations into the department as the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown draws mounting pushback.
The Office of Inspector General detailed eight individual probes — most of which pertain to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in a news release on Thursday.
Currently under review are ICE’s hiring program, use of expedited removal authority, use of force and detention facilities. Also being examined are DHS’s use of biometric data and U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s interior operations. The inspector general said it was looking into whether these actions comply with federal law and department guidelines.
Several of these investigations had previously been disclosed.
The independent review comes as President Donald Trump’s immigration tactics — which have resulted in several fatal shootings — are facing growing criticism from the public and scrutiny from lawmakers.
According to a February Quinnipiac survey, 63 percent of American voters disapprove of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws, while 34 percent approve. Fifty-nine percent of voters also believe the recent agent-involved shootings in Minneapolis “are a sign of broader problems in the way ICE is operating.”
Numerous Democrats in Congress have criticized DHS’s enforcement tactics and called on Secretary Kristi Noem to resign or face impeachment. Senate Democrats are now blocking DHS funding until reforms are enacted, such as requiring federal agents to wear body cameras and display identification.
The White House, meanwhile, has said it is simply enforcing laws on the books and working to remove millions of illegal immigrants allowed into the country under former President Joe Biden’s administration. On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described Democrats’ demands as unreasonable.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin also dismissed the inspector general’s investigations, telling Politico: “The supposed number of ongoing matters doesn’t say anything about their disposition or the facts.”
“DHS’s job is to secure the homeland, and we do so in line with federal law and the Constitution,” she added. “The Trump administration is committed to transparency, and we have no problem with honest and impartial oversight.”
A DHS representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Independent.
In recent weeks, anti-ICE protests have taken place in cities across the nation (AFP via Getty Images)
During his first month in office, Trump removed multiple independent watchdogs from their posts at government agencies. However, Joseph Cuffari, the DHS’s inspector general, still remains at his position.
Last week, numerous Democrats in Congress sent Cuffari a letter, asking him to speed up his investigations.
“Given the urgency of this situation — with communities facing severe, and sometimes fatal, harm from ICE’s tactics on American streets every day — we request that your office conduct this review expeditiously and share any preliminary findings with Congress and the public on an expedited basis,” the lawmakers wrote.
The inspector general appeared to address this letter in its release on Thursday.
“We recognize the importance of these reviews to provide valuable insight to DHS leadership and Congress, as well as to the public,” the release said. “These reviews are being conducted as expeditiously as possible while ensuring we apply rigor and uphold our professional standards.”
The inspector general said that the timeline for these reviews is determined by multiple factors — including access to information, the availability of resources and the scope of the project.
“Therefore we cannot provide a specific date of completion,” the release said.
The Department of Homeland Security’s independent watchdog revealed multiple ongoing investigations into the department as the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown draws mounting pushback.
The Office of Inspector General detailed eight individual probes — most of which pertain to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in a news release on Thursday.
Currently under review are ICE’s hiring program, use of expedited removal authority, use of force and detention facilities. Also being examined are DHS’s use of biometric data and U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s interior operations. The inspector general said it was looking into whether these actions comply with federal law and department guidelines.
Several of these investigations had previously been disclosed.
The independent review comes as President Donald Trump’s immigration tactics — which have resulted in several fatal shootings — are facing growing criticism from the public and scrutiny from lawmakers.
According to a February Quinnipiac survey, 63 percent of American voters disapprove of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws, while 34 percent approve. Fifty-nine percent of voters also believe the recent agent-involved shootings in Minneapolis “are a sign of broader problems in the way ICE is operating.”
Numerous Democrats in Congress have criticized DHS’s enforcement tactics and called on Secretary Kristi Noem to resign or face impeachment. Senate Democrats are now blocking DHS funding until reforms are enacted, such as requiring federal agents to wear body cameras and display identification.
The White House, meanwhile, has said it is simply enforcing laws on the books and working to remove millions of illegal immigrants allowed into the country under former President Joe Biden’s administration. On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described Democrats’ demands as unreasonable.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin also dismissed the inspector general’s investigations, telling Politico: “The supposed number of ongoing matters doesn’t say anything about their disposition or the facts.”
“DHS’s job is to secure the homeland, and we do so in line with federal law and the Constitution,” she added. “The Trump administration is committed to transparency, and we have no problem with honest and impartial oversight.”
A DHS representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Independent.
In recent weeks, anti-ICE protests have taken place in cities across the nation (AFP via Getty Images)
During his first month in office, Trump removed multiple independent watchdogs from their posts at government agencies. However, Joseph Cuffari, the DHS’s inspector general, still remains at his position.
Last week, numerous Democrats in Congress sent Cuffari a letter, asking him to speed up his investigations.
“Given the urgency of this situation — with communities facing severe, and sometimes fatal, harm from ICE’s tactics on American streets every day — we request that your office conduct this review expeditiously and share any preliminary findings with Congress and the public on an expedited basis,” the lawmakers wrote.
The inspector general appeared to address this letter in its release on Thursday.
“We recognize the importance of these reviews to provide valuable insight to DHS leadership and Congress, as well as to the public,” the release said. “These reviews are being conducted as expeditiously as possible while ensuring we apply rigor and uphold our professional standards.”
The inspector general said that the timeline for these reviews is determined by multiple factors — including access to information, the availability of resources and the scope of the project.
“Therefore we cannot provide a specific date of completion,” the release said.
Trump's FTC accused of hatching revenge plot to crush media ratings firm
A new lawsuit alleges that President Donald Trump's Federal Trade Commission is trying to run a media ratings company out of business in retaliation for it giving poor marks to outlets that support the Republican Party.
According to The Washington Post, NewsGuard, founded in 2018 by two former media executives, "researches news sites and assigns them 'reliability ratings' based on their journalistic standards, selling these scores to readers, tech platforms and advertisers that want to steer clear of low-quality sources. The company, which insists it is rigorously nonpartisan, has made enemies in recent years by giving low ratings to conservative outlets such as the right-wing cable news channels Newsmax and One America News."
In their lawsuit, NewsGuard alleges that the FTC has undertaken multiple moves designed to crush the company's business as an act of political revenge.
"Last May, Trump’s FTC launched an investigation of NewsGuard, ordering the company to hand over the names of all its clients, virtually every document and communication it has ever produced related to its news ratings, and all of its financial reports since the time of its founding, the company alleges," said the report. "Then, before approving a $13 billion merger that created the world’s largest ad agency, the FTC included an order that effectively blocks the newly formed goliath from ever doing business with companies like NewsGuard."
These measures, the lawsuit said, are a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments comparable to “the witch hunts of the McCarthy era,” and a reflection of right-wing FTC chair Andrew Ferguson's crusade to “brazenly [use] its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech.”
This comes after federal courts sharply rebuked the FTC last year for an investigation into the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America, allegedly for colluding with advertisers to block tech billionaire Elon Musk's X platform from receiving ad revenue. Media Matters had triggered several advertiser withdrawals from the site by revealing to the public how frequently the ads were being displayed next to antisemitic and neo-Nazi content.
A new lawsuit alleges that President Donald Trump's Federal Trade Commission is trying to run a media ratings company out of business in retaliation for it giving poor marks to outlets that support the Republican Party.
According to The Washington Post, NewsGuard, founded in 2018 by two former media executives, "researches news sites and assigns them 'reliability ratings' based on their journalistic standards, selling these scores to readers, tech platforms and advertisers that want to steer clear of low-quality sources. The company, which insists it is rigorously nonpartisan, has made enemies in recent years by giving low ratings to conservative outlets such as the right-wing cable news channels Newsmax and One America News."
In their lawsuit, NewsGuard alleges that the FTC has undertaken multiple moves designed to crush the company's business as an act of political revenge.
"Last May, Trump’s FTC launched an investigation of NewsGuard, ordering the company to hand over the names of all its clients, virtually every document and communication it has ever produced related to its news ratings, and all of its financial reports since the time of its founding, the company alleges," said the report. "Then, before approving a $13 billion merger that created the world’s largest ad agency, the FTC included an order that effectively blocks the newly formed goliath from ever doing business with companies like NewsGuard."
These measures, the lawsuit said, are a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments comparable to “the witch hunts of the McCarthy era,” and a reflection of right-wing FTC chair Andrew Ferguson's crusade to “brazenly [use] its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech.”
This comes after federal courts sharply rebuked the FTC last year for an investigation into the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America, allegedly for colluding with advertisers to block tech billionaire Elon Musk's X platform from receiving ad revenue. Media Matters had triggered several advertiser withdrawals from the site by revealing to the public how frequently the ads were being displayed next to antisemitic and neo-Nazi content.
Judge orders federal agent disclose private text message thanks to DHS official’s flub
An Illinois judge has ordered that all text messages and videos about the shooting of Marimar Martinez be turned over.
Martinez, from Chicago, was shot five times by federal agents during the so-called "Operation Midway Blitz" in which the federal government deployed thousands of agents to find and arrest immigrants.
The Martinez story is unique in that, even after the videos were released, the Department of Homeland Security continued to deny what was happening in them.
Federal courts reporter Jon Seidel from the Chicago Sun Times was in court on Friday to hear the case about Martinez presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Georgia Alexakis.
Martinez and her attorney have argued that they need access to the text messages and videos from the federal agents in the case and the government is refusing to turn those over.
Alexakis asked about the text messages by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum: "Is the universe of text messages limited to the text messages that I reviewed in camera?"
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron DeWald confirmed that they were.
As her lawyer told CNN, Homeland Security official Tricia McLaughlin continues to insist that the federal agents were "boxed in" by cars and couldn't get away. In fact, there was no one in front of them and Martinez's car went around them on the left to get past their vehicle. That's when the agent fired on her.
That "is in direct contrast to this DHS statement that she at the agent," said lawyer Christopher Parente. "And you know, DHS, even though you said the agent testified in court that there was no ramming. Tricia McLaughlin and DHS are still putting out press statements saying that she rammed them. They don't even seem to know what their own agents are saying in court."
One of the agents later took a "trophy" photo of Martinez after she was released from the hospital.
The judge specifically cited McLaughlin's comments as the basis for releasing the agent's text messages.
Judge Alexakis stated, "The Department of Homeland Security continues to allege that Ms. Martinez ambushed federal officers, rammed them with her vehicle, and while doing so was armed with a semiautomatic weapon."
"Agent Exum's text messages provide insight into his perspective of the shooting," she continued. "They bear on his credibility. They provide insight into how others within DHS leadership and within other government entities responded to the shooting."
She ultimately ruled that the Martinez team had shown "good cause" for releasing the text messages from the agent.
An Illinois judge has ordered that all text messages and videos about the shooting of Marimar Martinez be turned over.
Martinez, from Chicago, was shot five times by federal agents during the so-called "Operation Midway Blitz" in which the federal government deployed thousands of agents to find and arrest immigrants.
The Martinez story is unique in that, even after the videos were released, the Department of Homeland Security continued to deny what was happening in them.
Federal courts reporter Jon Seidel from the Chicago Sun Times was in court on Friday to hear the case about Martinez presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Georgia Alexakis.
Martinez and her attorney have argued that they need access to the text messages and videos from the federal agents in the case and the government is refusing to turn those over.
Alexakis asked about the text messages by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum: "Is the universe of text messages limited to the text messages that I reviewed in camera?"
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron DeWald confirmed that they were.
As her lawyer told CNN, Homeland Security official Tricia McLaughlin continues to insist that the federal agents were "boxed in" by cars and couldn't get away. In fact, there was no one in front of them and Martinez's car went around them on the left to get past their vehicle. That's when the agent fired on her.
That "is in direct contrast to this DHS statement that she at the agent," said lawyer Christopher Parente. "And you know, DHS, even though you said the agent testified in court that there was no ramming. Tricia McLaughlin and DHS are still putting out press statements saying that she rammed them. They don't even seem to know what their own agents are saying in court."
One of the agents later took a "trophy" photo of Martinez after she was released from the hospital.
The judge specifically cited McLaughlin's comments as the basis for releasing the agent's text messages.
Judge Alexakis stated, "The Department of Homeland Security continues to allege that Ms. Martinez ambushed federal officers, rammed them with her vehicle, and while doing so was armed with a semiautomatic weapon."
"Agent Exum's text messages provide insight into his perspective of the shooting," she continued. "They bear on his credibility. They provide insight into how others within DHS leadership and within other government entities responded to the shooting."
She ultimately ruled that the Martinez team had shown "good cause" for releasing the text messages from the agent.
Appeals court affirms Trump policy of jailing immigrants without bond
President Donald Trump's administration can continue to detain immigrants without bond, marking a major legal victory for the federal immigration agenda and countering a slew of recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.
A panel of judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday evening that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country is consistent with the constitution and federal immigration law.
Specifically, circuit judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion that the government correctly interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act by asserting that “unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States."
Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.
"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under" the law “does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” Jones wrote.
The plaintiffs in the two separate cases filed last year against the Trump administration were both Mexican nationals who had both lived in the United States for over 10 years and weren't flight risks, their attorneys argued. Neither man had a criminal record, and both were jailed for months last year before a lower Texas court granted them bond in October.
The Trump White House reversed that policy in favor of mandatory detention in July, reversing almost 30 years of precedent under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
Friday's ruling also bucks a November district court decision in California, which granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.
Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas wrote the lone dissent in Friday's decision.
The elected congress members who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act “would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people,” Douglas wrote, adding that many of the people detained are “the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
She went on to argue that the federal government was overriding the lawmaking process with DHS' new immigration detention policy that denies detained immigrants bond.
“Because I would reject the government’s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent,” Douglas wrote.
Douglas' opinion echoed widespread tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges around the country, who have increasingly accused the administration of flouting court orders.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn."
“We will continue vindicating President Trump’s law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country,” Bondi wrote on the social media platform X.
Safiyah Riddle, The Associated Press
President Donald Trump's administration can continue to detain immigrants without bond, marking a major legal victory for the federal immigration agenda and countering a slew of recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.
A panel of judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday evening that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country is consistent with the constitution and federal immigration law.
Specifically, circuit judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion that the government correctly interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act by asserting that “unadmitted aliens apprehended anywhere in the United States are ineligible for release on bond, regardless of how long they have resided inside the United States."
Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.
"That prior Administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority under" the law “does not mean they lacked the authority to do more,” Jones wrote.
The plaintiffs in the two separate cases filed last year against the Trump administration were both Mexican nationals who had both lived in the United States for over 10 years and weren't flight risks, their attorneys argued. Neither man had a criminal record, and both were jailed for months last year before a lower Texas court granted them bond in October.
The Trump White House reversed that policy in favor of mandatory detention in July, reversing almost 30 years of precedent under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
Friday's ruling also bucks a November district court decision in California, which granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.
Circuit Judge Dana M. Douglas wrote the lone dissent in Friday's decision.
The elected congress members who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act “would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people,” Douglas wrote, adding that many of the people detained are “the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens.”
She went on to argue that the federal government was overriding the lawmaking process with DHS' new immigration detention policy that denies detained immigrants bond.
“Because I would reject the government’s invitation to rubber stamp its proposed legislation by executive fiat, I dissent,” Douglas wrote.
Douglas' opinion echoed widespread tensions between the Trump administration and federal judges around the country, who have increasingly accused the administration of flouting court orders.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn."
“We will continue vindicating President Trump’s law and order agenda in courtrooms across the country,” Bondi wrote on the social media platform X.
Safiyah Riddle, The Associated Press
Judge orders return of 3 deported families protected by family separation settlement
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A judge says the federal government must return three families hurt by the first Trump administration's policy of separating parents from the children at the border, saying their deportations in recent months relied on “lies, deception and coercion."
The order, issued Thursday, found the deported families should have been allowed to remain in the United States under terms of a legal settlement over the Trump administration's separation of about 6,000 children from their parents at the border in 2018. Each mother had permission to remain in the U.S. until 2027 under humanitarian parole.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego said the administration also had to pay for their return travel costs.
One woman and her three children, including a 6-year-old U.S. citizen, were deported to Honduras in July after being ordered to check in with ICE at least 11 times over two months, which, she said, caused her to lose her job.
Sabraw rejected the government’s argument that the family left the U.S. voluntarily. The woman said ICE officers visited her home and asked her sign a document agreeing to leave but she refused.
“This did not make any difference to these officers. They took me and my children to a motel and removed my ankle monitor. They detained us for three days and then removed us to Honduras,” the woman said in court documents.
The other two families, identified only by their initials, bore similarities.
“Each of the removals was unlawful, and absent the removals, these families would still be in the United States and have access to the benefits and resources they are entitled to,” wrote Sabraw, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the families, welcomed the decision.
“The Trump administration has never acknowledged the illegality or gratuitous cruelty of the initial family separation policy and now has started re-deporting and re-separating these same families. The Court put its foot down and not only ordered the families return but did so at government expense,” he said.
The Homeland Security and Justice departments did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Friday.
Under a “zero-tolerance” policy, parents were separated from their children to be criminally prosecuted when crossing the border illegally. Sabraw ordered an end to the separations in June 2018, days after Trump halted them on his own amid intense international backlash. The settlement prohibits such a policy until 2031.
Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press
SAN DIEGO (AP) — A judge says the federal government must return three families hurt by the first Trump administration's policy of separating parents from the children at the border, saying their deportations in recent months relied on “lies, deception and coercion."
The order, issued Thursday, found the deported families should have been allowed to remain in the United States under terms of a legal settlement over the Trump administration's separation of about 6,000 children from their parents at the border in 2018. Each mother had permission to remain in the U.S. until 2027 under humanitarian parole.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego said the administration also had to pay for their return travel costs.
One woman and her three children, including a 6-year-old U.S. citizen, were deported to Honduras in July after being ordered to check in with ICE at least 11 times over two months, which, she said, caused her to lose her job.
Sabraw rejected the government’s argument that the family left the U.S. voluntarily. The woman said ICE officers visited her home and asked her sign a document agreeing to leave but she refused.
“This did not make any difference to these officers. They took me and my children to a motel and removed my ankle monitor. They detained us for three days and then removed us to Honduras,” the woman said in court documents.
The other two families, identified only by their initials, bore similarities.
“Each of the removals was unlawful, and absent the removals, these families would still be in the United States and have access to the benefits and resources they are entitled to,” wrote Sabraw, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents the families, welcomed the decision.
“The Trump administration has never acknowledged the illegality or gratuitous cruelty of the initial family separation policy and now has started re-deporting and re-separating these same families. The Court put its foot down and not only ordered the families return but did so at government expense,” he said.
The Homeland Security and Justice departments did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Friday.
Under a “zero-tolerance” policy, parents were separated from their children to be criminally prosecuted when crossing the border illegally. Sabraw ordered an end to the separations in June 2018, days after Trump halted them on his own amid intense international backlash. The settlement prohibits such a policy until 2031.
Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press
Trump orders Noem to escalate demands
President Donald Trump has ordered Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to intensify pressure on federal immigration authorities in Minnesota, directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to publicly release details about recent arrests.
The directive, delivered via a Truth Social post, reflects the administration’s effort to rally public support for ICE as protests and political opposition mount over its expanded operations in the state.
Trump’s directive to DHS and ICE
In his post, Trump praised ICE agents operating under Noem’s leadership and argued that publicizing arrests would shift public opinion.
“The Department of Homeland Security and ICE must start talking about the murderers and other criminals that they are capturing and taking out of the system. They are saving many innocent lives! There are thousands of vicious animals in Minnesota alone, which is why the crime stats are, Nationwide, the BEST EVER RECORDED! Show the Numbers, Names, and Faces of the violent criminals, and show them NOW. The people will start supporting the Patriots of ICE, instead of the highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” he wrote.
The order comes amid growing criticism of ICE tactics and calls from civil rights groups for greater oversight of federal immigration enforcement.
Minnesota as a federal flashpoint
Minnesota has emerged as a central battleground in the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration push since DHS launched Operation Metro Surge in December, leading to hundreds of arrests.
Protests intensified after two shootings involving ICE agents, including the January 7 killing of Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen, and the wounding of Venezuelan migrant Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during a separate detention attempt.
Media reports indicate that about 1,500 active-duty U.S. soldiers have been placed on standby.
Notably, Trump has warned he could invoke the Insurrection Act if state and local officials fail to curb protests, while the White House has accused Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of obstructing ICE operations. Minnesota officials deny the claims and have filed suit, calling the federal response unconstitutional.
Impeachment articles target Noem
Trump’s directive coincides with a renewed Democratic effort to impeach Noem.
Representative Robin Kelly of Illinois has introduced three articles of impeachment accusing the DHS secretary of obstruction of Congress, violation of public trust and self-dealing. Ninety-seven House Democrats have signed on, although the effort faces long odds in a Republican-controlled House.
Attempts to impeach Noem ‘more forceful’ than efforts to impeach Trump
William F. Hall, an adjunct professor at Webster University, said in a statement that “recent events gathering momentum directed toward attempting to impeach Noem appear to be somewhat different and significantly more forceful than earlier efforts directed at attempting to impeach and remove President Trump.”
However, DHS officials have dismissed the effort, with a spokesperson calling it “silly.”
President Donald Trump has ordered Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to intensify pressure on federal immigration authorities in Minnesota, directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to publicly release details about recent arrests.
The directive, delivered via a Truth Social post, reflects the administration’s effort to rally public support for ICE as protests and political opposition mount over its expanded operations in the state.
Trump’s directive to DHS and ICE
In his post, Trump praised ICE agents operating under Noem’s leadership and argued that publicizing arrests would shift public opinion.
“The Department of Homeland Security and ICE must start talking about the murderers and other criminals that they are capturing and taking out of the system. They are saving many innocent lives! There are thousands of vicious animals in Minnesota alone, which is why the crime stats are, Nationwide, the BEST EVER RECORDED! Show the Numbers, Names, and Faces of the violent criminals, and show them NOW. The people will start supporting the Patriots of ICE, instead of the highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” he wrote.
The order comes amid growing criticism of ICE tactics and calls from civil rights groups for greater oversight of federal immigration enforcement.
Minnesota as a federal flashpoint
Minnesota has emerged as a central battleground in the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration push since DHS launched Operation Metro Surge in December, leading to hundreds of arrests.
Protests intensified after two shootings involving ICE agents, including the January 7 killing of Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen, and the wounding of Venezuelan migrant Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis during a separate detention attempt.
Media reports indicate that about 1,500 active-duty U.S. soldiers have been placed on standby.
Notably, Trump has warned he could invoke the Insurrection Act if state and local officials fail to curb protests, while the White House has accused Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of obstructing ICE operations. Minnesota officials deny the claims and have filed suit, calling the federal response unconstitutional.
Impeachment articles target Noem
Trump’s directive coincides with a renewed Democratic effort to impeach Noem.
Representative Robin Kelly of Illinois has introduced three articles of impeachment accusing the DHS secretary of obstruction of Congress, violation of public trust and self-dealing. Ninety-seven House Democrats have signed on, although the effort faces long odds in a Republican-controlled House.
Attempts to impeach Noem ‘more forceful’ than efforts to impeach Trump
William F. Hall, an adjunct professor at Webster University, said in a statement that “recent events gathering momentum directed toward attempting to impeach Noem appear to be somewhat different and significantly more forceful than earlier efforts directed at attempting to impeach and remove President Trump.”
However, DHS officials have dismissed the effort, with a spokesperson calling it “silly.”
Bar complaint filed against Trump-appointed prosecutor
The Freedom of the Press Foundation has filed a disciplinary complaint with the Virginia State Bar against the federal prosecutor who signed the search warrant request for Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, saying he omitted laws that would have prevented the warrant from being granted.
According to a letter shared by legal reporter Adam Klasfeld, who writes "All Rise News," Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg used a leak investigation into a government contractor to obtain the warrant last month that led to the seizure of the reporters' electronic devices.
"The government has said that Natanson is not a target of its investigation," the release said.
The group cited a New York Times report published on Feb. 5, 2026, which said the warrant application neglected to mention the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. It's "a federal statute that limits search warrants for journalistic work product and documentary materials," the organization explained.
The warrant application, which was attached to the press release, also "made no mention of this controlling legal authority."
"The Privacy Protection Act prohibits searches of these materials except when there is probable cause to believe that the reporter (or other target of a search, since the Act is not limited to professional journalists) has themselves committed a crime to which the materials relate," the group continued.
It's a problem for Kromberg, the letter said, because his signature appeared on an application that violates the "Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, 'Candor Toward the Tribunal,' which provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly 'fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client.'"
It also highlights that candor is particularly important in a case where there is no adverse authority to argue against such a warrant in court.
The group also objects to the possibility that the omission was an accident, given that the story was national news at the time.
"We request that this office take appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including disbarment, and that it expedite disciplinary proceedings due to the dire consequences for First Amendment freedoms if illegal newsroom raids and seizures of journalists’ work product are allowed to go unchecked," the letter closes.
Trump's prosecutors have struggled across the country as they endeavor to meet the president's demands. Two U.S. attorneys have been removed after judges said that their appointments violated the rules. Jim Saranteas wrote for The Constitution Society's Law and Policy Analysis forum that Bar Associations should get involved after the Trump administration tried to extort law firms with an executive order that threatened them by name.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation has filed a disciplinary complaint with the Virginia State Bar against the federal prosecutor who signed the search warrant request for Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, saying he omitted laws that would have prevented the warrant from being granted.
According to a letter shared by legal reporter Adam Klasfeld, who writes "All Rise News," Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg used a leak investigation into a government contractor to obtain the warrant last month that led to the seizure of the reporters' electronic devices.
"The government has said that Natanson is not a target of its investigation," the release said.
The group cited a New York Times report published on Feb. 5, 2026, which said the warrant application neglected to mention the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. It's "a federal statute that limits search warrants for journalistic work product and documentary materials," the organization explained.
The warrant application, which was attached to the press release, also "made no mention of this controlling legal authority."
"The Privacy Protection Act prohibits searches of these materials except when there is probable cause to believe that the reporter (or other target of a search, since the Act is not limited to professional journalists) has themselves committed a crime to which the materials relate," the group continued.
It's a problem for Kromberg, the letter said, because his signature appeared on an application that violates the "Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, 'Candor Toward the Tribunal,' which provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly 'fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client.'"
It also highlights that candor is particularly important in a case where there is no adverse authority to argue against such a warrant in court.
The group also objects to the possibility that the omission was an accident, given that the story was national news at the time.
"We request that this office take appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including disbarment, and that it expedite disciplinary proceedings due to the dire consequences for First Amendment freedoms if illegal newsroom raids and seizures of journalists’ work product are allowed to go unchecked," the letter closes.
Trump's prosecutors have struggled across the country as they endeavor to meet the president's demands. Two U.S. attorneys have been removed after judges said that their appointments violated the rules. Jim Saranteas wrote for The Constitution Society's Law and Policy Analysis forum that Bar Associations should get involved after the Trump administration tried to extort law firms with an executive order that threatened them by name.
Judge blocks California's ban on federal agents wearing masks but requires badges be clearly seen
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces, but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following the summer of high-profile raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the laws, arguing that they would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that they violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.
Judge Christina Snyder said she issued the initial ruling because the mask ban as it was enacted did not also apply to state law enforcement authorities, discriminating against the federal government. The ruling could have national implications as states grapple with how to deal with federal agents enforcing the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
It left open the possibility to future legislation banning federal agents from wearing masks if it applied to all law enforcement agencies, with Snyder writing "the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.” The ruling will go into effect Feb. 19.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in September banning some law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was slated to go into effect Jan. 1 but was put on hold due to the lawsuit.
In addition to exempting state law enforcement officers, it made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation. Snyder sided with the federal government, which argued this exemption was discriminatory against federal agents.
Newsom also signed into law a measure requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job, which was challenged by the federal government but upheld by the judge.
California State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state police in the law.
“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Weiner said in a news release. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”
At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder repeatedly asked the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede the federal law enforcement in carrying out their duties, if officers rarely wore masks prior to 2025.
Davis cited claims by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that there has been a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also brought up an incident in Los Angeles where three women are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and posting the address on Instagram.
“There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said.
Cameron Bell, California Department of Justice attorney, challenged his claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that federal agents can’t perform their duties without facial coverings.
Bell referenced declarations from U.S citizens who have been detained by federal agents but thought they were being kidnapped.
“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.
The federal government also argued in legal briefs that allowing California’s legislation could lead other states to be “emboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.”
Davis cited a statement from Newsom in July 2025 during an interview posted online where he discussed the mask ban bill, saying, “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”
Los Angeles County supervisors voted in December to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from wearing masks that went into effect Jan. 8. However, the sheriff’s department said it would not enforce the ordinance until after the court ruled on the statewide mask ban. The Los Angeles Police Department had also said it wouldn’t enforce the mask ban.
Jaimie Ding, The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces, but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following the summer of high-profile raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles.
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the laws, arguing that they would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that they violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.
Judge Christina Snyder said she issued the initial ruling because the mask ban as it was enacted did not also apply to state law enforcement authorities, discriminating against the federal government. The ruling could have national implications as states grapple with how to deal with federal agents enforcing the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
It left open the possibility to future legislation banning federal agents from wearing masks if it applied to all law enforcement agencies, with Snyder writing "the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.” The ruling will go into effect Feb. 19.
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in September banning some law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was slated to go into effect Jan. 1 but was put on hold due to the lawsuit.
In addition to exempting state law enforcement officers, it made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation. Snyder sided with the federal government, which argued this exemption was discriminatory against federal agents.
Newsom also signed into law a measure requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job, which was challenged by the federal government but upheld by the judge.
California State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state police in the law.
“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Weiner said in a news release. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”
At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder repeatedly asked the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede the federal law enforcement in carrying out their duties, if officers rarely wore masks prior to 2025.
Davis cited claims by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that there has been a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also brought up an incident in Los Angeles where three women are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and posting the address on Instagram.
“There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said.
Cameron Bell, California Department of Justice attorney, challenged his claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that federal agents can’t perform their duties without facial coverings.
Bell referenced declarations from U.S citizens who have been detained by federal agents but thought they were being kidnapped.
“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.
The federal government also argued in legal briefs that allowing California’s legislation could lead other states to be “emboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.”
Davis cited a statement from Newsom in July 2025 during an interview posted online where he discussed the mask ban bill, saying, “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”
Los Angeles County supervisors voted in December to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from wearing masks that went into effect Jan. 8. However, the sheriff’s department said it would not enforce the ordinance until after the court ruled on the statewide mask ban. The Los Angeles Police Department had also said it wouldn’t enforce the mask ban.
Jaimie Ding, The Associated Press
