ICE arrests in Northern California have surged this summer, a Chronicle analysis of deportation data shows. That’s in keeping with national trends.
The Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claimed on Friday that they are “cleaning up the streets,” targeting what they continued to call the “WORST OF THE WORST” — including “illegal alien pedophiles, sex offenders, and violent thugs.”
But the numbers tell a more complicated story.
Since the beginning of 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested roughly 2,640 people in its San Francisco “area of responsibility” — a 123% increase compared to the final seven months of the Biden administration. The pace picked up dramatically in June and July.
That area spans a large portion of California, from Kern County northward, and also includes Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan. The Chronicle’s analysis focused only on arrests made within California.
Notably, under the Trump administration, arrests of people without criminal convictions have risen sharply. Many of those taken into custody have only pending criminal charges — or none at all. In June, about 58% of arrests involved individuals with no prior convictions. That figure dipped slightly to 56% in July, but just a few months earlier, the numbers were far lower: In December, before President Donald Trump took office, only 10% of arrests involved people without a criminal conviction.
Among those without a conviction, ICE has arrested a large number of individuals whose only suspected violation is entering the country illegally or overstaying their visa. Although administration officials often call these undocumented immigrants “criminals,” being in the U.S. without legal status is a civil violation, not a crime.
Arrests of convicted criminals are also up, though not as sharply. Those convictions varied widely — from serious and violent crimes like child sexual assault, homicide, and drug trafficking, to lesser charges such as traffic violations and low-level misdemeanors.
ICE officers raided a home in East Oakland on Tuesday and detained at least six people, including a minor and a person with a severe disability, according to an immigration attorney. In June, Oakland police confirmed to the Chronicle that ICE alerted them of its activity, but ICE did not provide additional details.
Also, for the first time in the Bay Area, ICE detained two U.S. citizens during a protest on Aug. 8, outside the agency’s San Francisco field office at 630 Sansome St. Aliya Karmali, an Oakland immigration attorney, told Mission Local that she hasn’t seen “ICE arresting [U.S. citizen] protestors in the Bay since entering the legal field nearly 20 years ago.”
The picture is similar nationwide. National data from the Transaction Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University indicates that the number of people detained by ICE — excluding those arrested by Customs and Border Protection — saw a 178% increase between Jan. 26 and July 13.
Since the beginning of 2025, ICE arrests of people with no criminal convictions has skyrocketed, with a 370% increase from the end of January to mid-July. In June, ICE held more people for immigration violations than for pending charges for the first time — a trend that continued into July.
Reports indicate that ICE has been targeting workers in mostly Latino neighborhoods and on jobsites — sometimes based on vague tips from people claiming they saw undocumented immigrants, but often with no clear reason at all. It has also arrested thousands of people in public places.
Though the administration views the increased immigration enforcement as necessary for public safety or border security, many believe the arrests are fueling fear, separating families, disrupting labor markets and local economies, and doing little to actually solve the country’s broader immigration problems.
“It seems like they’re just arresting people they think might be in the country without status and amenable to deportation,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, in a June Reuters story.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/ice-arrests-deport-data-20818148.php
They trekked through a dozen countries, from Asia to South America, on horseback across the perilous Darien Gap and up through Central America to Mexico.
Members of Afghanistan’s persecuted Shiite Hazara minority, the family — a man who worked for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, his wife and three of their children — spent months in Mexico trying to schedule an appointment with U.S. immigration authorities through the Biden administration’s CBP One app, to no avail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/08/18/canada-afghan-migrants-ice-detention
President Trump’s declaration of a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., will further entwine the U.S. military—and its equipment and technology—in law-enforcement matters, and perhaps expose D.C. residents and visitors to unprecedented digital surveillance.
Brushing aside statistics that show violent crime in D.C. at a 30-year low, Trump on Monday described a new level of coordination between D.C. National Guard units and federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, ICE, and and the newly federalized D.C. police force.
“We will have full, seamless, integrated cooperation at all levels of law enforcement, and will deploy officers across the district with an overwhelming presence. You’ll have more police, and you’ll be so happy because you’re being safe,” he said at a White House press conference.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, standing beside Trump, promised close collaboration between the Pentagon and domestic authorities. “We will work alongside all DC police and federal law enforcement to ensure this city is safe.”
What comes next? The June 2020 deployment of National Guard units to work alongside D.C. police offers a glimpse: citywide use of sophisticated intelligence-gathering technologies normally reserved for foreign war zones.
Some surveillance platforms will be relatively easy to spot, such as spy aircraft over D.C.’s closely guarded airspace. In 2020, authorities deployed an RC-26B, a military-intelligence aircraft, and MQ-9 Predator drones. The FBI contributed a Cessna 560 equipped with “dirtboxes”: devices that mimic cell towers to collect mobile data, long used by the U.S. military to track terrorist networks in the Middle East.
Other gear will be less obvious.The 2020 protests saw expanded use of Stingrays, another type of cellular interception device. Developed to enable the military to track militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, Stingrays were used by the U.S. Secret Service in 2020 and 2021 in ways that the DHS inspector general found broke the law and policies concerning privacy and warrants. Agency officials said “exigent” circumstances justified the illicit spying.
Now, with federal agencies and entities working with military personnel under declared-emergency circumstances, new gear could enter domestic use. And local officials or the civilian review boards that normally oversee police use of such technologies may lack the power to prevent or even monitor it. In 2021, the D.C. government ended a facial-recognition pilot program after police used it to identify a protester at Lafayette Square. But local prohibitions don’t apply to federalized or military forces.
Next up: AI-powered surveillance
How might new AI tools, and new White House measures to ease sharing across federal entities, enable surveillance targeting?
DHS and its sub-agencies already use AI. Some tools—such as monitoring trucks or cargo at the border for contraband, mapping human trafficking and drug networks, and watching the border—serve an obvious public-safety mission. Last year, DHS used AI and other tools to identify 311 victims of sexual exploitation and to arrest suspected perpetrators. They also helps DHS counter the flow of fentanyl; last October, the agency cited AI while reporting a 50 percent increase in seizures and an 8 percent increase in arrests.
TSA uses facial recognition across the country to match the faces and documents of airline passengers entering the United States in at least 26 airports, according to 2022 agency data. The accuracy has improved greatly in the past decade, and research suggests even better performance is possible: the National Institute of Standards and Technology has shown that some algorithms can achieve 99%-plus accuracy under ideal conditions.
But conditions are not always ideal, and mistakes can be costly. “There have been public reports of seven instances of mistaken arrests associated with the use of facial recognition technology, almost all involving Black individuals. The collection and use of biometric data also poses privacy risks, especially when it involves personal information that people have shared in unrelated contexts,” noted a Justice Department report in December.
On Monday, Trump promised that the increased federal activity would target “known gangs, drug dealers and criminal networks.” But network mapping—using digital information to identify who knows who and how—has other uses, and raises the risk of innocent people being misidentified.
Last week, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request concerning the use of two software tools by D.C.’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency. Called Cobwebs and Tangles, the tools can reveal sensitive information about any person with just a name or email address, according to internal documents cited in the filing.
Cobwebs shows how AI can wring new insights from existing data sources, especially when there are no rules to prohibit the gathering of large stores of data. Long before the capability existed to do it effectively, this idea was at the center of what, a decade ago, was called predictive policing.
The concept has lost favor since the 2010s, but many law-enforcement agencies still pursue versions of it. Historically, the main obstacle has been too much data, fragmented across systems and structures. DHS has legal access to public video footage, social media posts, and border and airport entry records—but until recently, these datasets were difficult to analyze in real time, particularly within legal constraints.
That’s changing. The 2017 Modernizing Government Technology Act encouraged new software and cloud computing resources to help agencies use and share data more effectively, and in March, an executive order removed several barriers to interagency data sharing. The government has since awarded billions of dollars to private companies to improve access to internal data.
One of those companies is Palantir, whose work was characterized by the New York Times as an effort to compile a “master list” of data on U.S. citizens. The firm disputed that in a June 9 blog post: “Palantir is a software company and, in the context of our customer engagements, operates as a ‘data processor’—our software is used by customers to manage and make use of their data.”
In a 2019 article for the FBI training division, California sheriff Robert Davidson envisioned a scenario—now technologically feasible—in which AI analyzes body-camera imagery in real time: “Monitoring, facial recognition, gait analysis, weapons detection, and voice-stress analysis all would actively evaluate potential danger to the officer. After identification of a threat, the system could enact an automated response based on severity.”
The data DHS collects extends well beyond matching live images to photos in a database or detecting passengers’ emotional states. ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit, for instance, handles large volumes of multilingual email. DHS describes its email analytics program as using machine learning “for spam classification, translation, and entity extraction (such as names, organizations, or locations).”
Another DHS tool analyzes social-media posts to gather “open-source information on travelers who may be subject to further screening for potential violation of laws.” The tool can identify additional accounts and selectors, such as phone numbers or email addresses, according to DHS documentation.
Meanwhile, ICE’s operational scope has expanded. The White House has increased the agency’s authority to operate in hospitals and schools, collect employment data—including on non-imigrants, such as “sponsors” of unaccompanied minors—and impose higher penalties on individuals seen as “interfering” with ICE activities. Labor leaders say they’ve been targeted for their political activism. Protesters have been charged with assaulting ICE officers or employees. ICE has installed facial-recognition apps on officers’ phones, enabling on-the-spot identification of people protesting the agency’s tactics. DHS bulletins sent to local law enforcement encourage officers to consider a wide range of normal activity, such as filming police interactions, as potential precursors to violence.
Broad accessibility of even legally collected data raises concerns, especially in an era where AI tools can derive specific insights about people. But even before these developments, government watchdogs urged greater transparency around domestic AI use. A December report by the Government Accountability Office includes several open recommendations, mostly related to privacy protections and reporting transparency. The following month, DHS’s inspector general warned that the agency doesn’t have complete or well-resourced oversight frameworks.
In June, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and several co-signers wrote to the Trump White House, “In addition to these concerning uses of sentiment analysis for law enforcement purposes, federal agencies have also shown interest in affective computing and deception detection technologies that purportedly infer individuals’ mental states from measures of their facial expressions, body language, or physiological activity.”
The letter asks the GAO to investigate what DHS or Justice Department policies govern AI use and whether those are being followed. Markey’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Writing for the American Immigration Council in May, Steven Hubbard, the group’s senior data scientist, noted that of DHS’ 105 AI applications, 27 are “rights-impacting.”
“These are cases that the OMB, under the Biden administration, identified as impacting an individual’s rights, liberty, privacy, access to equal opportunity, or ability to apply for government benefits and services,” Hubbard said.
The White House recently replaced Biden-era guidance on AI with new rules meant to accelerate AI deployment across the federal government. While the updated guidelines retain many safety guardrails, they do include some changes, including merging “privacy-impacting” and “safety-impacting” uses of AI into a single category: “high impact.”
The new rules also eliminate a requirement for agencies to notify people when AI tools might affect them—and to offer an opt-out.
Precedents for this kind of techno-surveillance expansion can be found in countries rarely deemed models for U.S. policy. China and Russia have greatly expanded surveillance and policing under the auspices of security. China operates an extensive camera network in public spaces and centralizes its data to enable rapid AI analysis. Russia has followed a similar path through its “Safe Cities” program, integrating data feeds from a vast surveillance network to spot and stop crime, protests, and dissent.
So far, the U.S. has spent less than these near-peers, as a percent of GDP, on surveillance tools, which are operated under a framework, however strained, of rule-of-law and rights protections that can mitigate the most draconian uses.
But the distinction between the United States and China and Russia is shrinking, Nathan Wessler, deputy director with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in July. “There’s the real nightmare scenario, which is pervasive tracking of live or recorded video, something that, by and large, we have kept at bay in the United States. It’s the kind of thing that authoritarian regimes have invested in heavily.”
Wessler noted that in May, the Washington Post reported that New Orleans authorities were applying facial recognition to live video feeds. “At that scale, that [threatens to] just erase our ability to go about our lives without being pervasively identified and tracked by the government.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acting chief of staff tried and failed to oust a senior White House liaison assigned to the Pentagon, people familiar with the matter said Monday, detailing an unusual dispute that marks the latest instance of infighting among a staff plagued by disagreement and distrust.
The clash last week between Ricky Buria, Hegseth’s acting chief of staff, and Matthew A. McNitt, who coordinates personnel policy as White House liaison at the Pentagon, appears rooted in Buria’s frustration with pushback from the White House as he has attempted to fill positions in the defense secretary’s office. It coincides, too, with the White House’s refusal to let Buria take over the powerful chief of staff job on a permanent basis.
Those familiar with the situation, which has not been previously reported, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid reprisal by the Trump administration.
The dispute between Buria and McNitt appears to have shaken a fragile agreement between Hegseth and the White House, which allowed Buria to serve as chief of staff only unofficially after several other people were considered for the position but declined to take it, the people familiar with the matter said. Officials at the White House, they said, intervened when Buria tried to get rid of McNitt, effectively blocking the move.
Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that Trump is “fully supportive of Secretary Hegseth and his efforts to restore a focus on warfighters at the Pentagon,” rather than diversity efforts and “woke initiatives.”
Ninety percent of political appointments in the Defense Department have been filled, Kelly said, “and all personnel, including Matt McNitt, reflect the administration’s shared mission to ensure our military is the most lethal fighting force in the world.”
The statement did not reference Buria.
It is not clear whether Hegseth supported or approved Buria’s attempt to remove McNitt from the Pentagon, or whether the secretary was even made aware of the power play in advance.
Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman and senior adviser to Hegseth, declined to address questions about the situation, issuing a brief statement instead downplaying the intra-staff upheaval.
“When the Fake News Media has nothing to report to the American people, they resort [to] blog posting about water cooler gossip to meet their quota for clicks,” the statement said. “This kind of nonsense won’t distract our team from our mission.”
McNitt, who served in a handful of roles during the first Trump administration, could not be reached for comment. Buria did not respond to a request for comment.
Their dispute is the latest in a series of fights that has consumed the Pentagon over the first six months of President Donald Trump’s return to office. Hegseth’s tenure has been marked by abrupt firings, personality clashes, threats and other forms of dysfunction that have drawn scrutiny from Capitol Hill and continue to be closely monitored by the White House.
Buria has been at the center of much of the turmoil, seeking to isolate Hegseth from other senior advisers on his staff and assert control over the Pentagon’s inner workings, people familiar with the issues have said. A recently retired Marine Corps colonel, he has served as the de facto chief of staff since April, after Hegseth’s initial choice for the job, Joe Kasper, voluntarily departed to return to the corporate world.
Buria’s rapid transition from nonpartisan military officer to political warrior has stunned people who know him and raised questions among some Trump administration officials who remain skeptical of his warm relations with Biden administration appointees in the Pentagon while he served as a junior military aide for then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Hegseth and Buria have clashed repeatedly with top generals and admirals serving in some of the Pentagon’s senior-most positions.
Most recently, the secretary rescinded the planned promotion of Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Sims, whose last day as director of the Joint Staff was last week. The decision, first reported last month by the New York Times, was made despite a direct appeal to Hegseth from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The director’s job, widely considered one of the military’s most important, is being filled on a temporary basis by Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Stephen Liszewski, people familiar with the matter said. Trump in June nominated Navy Vice Adm. Fred Kacher to replace Sims, and he awaits Senate confirmation.
Hegseth, fixated on trying to stop a succession of embarrassing leaks to the news media, earlier this year threatened to have a polygraph test conducted on Sims, a detail reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal. The secretary’s team did briefly conduct polygraph tests against some Pentagon officials in April and early May, but the effort was stopped at the direction of the White House after Patrick Weaver, a political appointee on Hegseth’s team, complained that Buria wanted him to submit to testing despite Weaver’s history of supporting Trump’s agenda.
Buria also has faced scrutiny alongside Hegseth over the secretary’s use of the unclassified chat app Signal. The Defense Department’s independent inspector general has received evidence that Hegseth’s Signal account in March shared operational details about a forthcoming bombing campaign in Yemen, information taken from a classified email labeled “SECRET/NOFORN.”
That designation means defense officials believed disclosure of the information to the wrong parties could damage national security. Among those who received the information were other top Trump administration officials, but also Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer, and personal attorney, Tim Parlatore.
The inspector general’s review is, in part, attempting to establish who posted in those group chats the highly sensitive information shared under Hegseth’s name, people familiar with the matter said. In addition to the defense secretary, Buria had access to Hegseth’s personal phone and sometimes posted information on his behalf, officials have said.
Last week, Hegseth’s team at the Pentagon lashed out at the inspector general’s office in what appeared to be an attempt to undermine the inquiry’s legitimacy even before its findings are made public.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/04/hegseth-buria-white-house-liaison-mcnitt
Walmart, Apple , and Amazon, the most successful companies in the U.S., base their corporate strategies on data: consumer behavior data, market research, financial, product, and competitive analysis data.
Any CEO who deliberately relied on falsified data, or who demanded cooked books, would be fired immediately — and likely sued by the Board of Directors.
Any CEO of any company who tried to manipulate the appearance of short-term success for his own personal gain, at the expense of long-term viability for the company, would also be fired and likely sued for malfeasance, and worse.
A successful CEO knows that falsifying economic or financial data can lead to charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and other financial crimes, because false data can ruin investors, corporations, and markets overnight.
Enter Donald Trump, whose self-proclaimed governing philosophy is “running the country like it’s a business.” Debunking the lie of his own manufactured image as a “successful businessman,” last Friday Trump angrily fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner because he didn’t like her data — even as he wears 34 felony convictions for falsifying records.
Dr. Erika McEntarfer, a widely respected statistician, enjoyed bipartisan support, including confirmation votes from Marco Rubio and JD Vance. Appointed commissioner under the Biden administration, she holds a Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech, and served at the Census Bureau for two decades under both parties prior to her BLS appointment.
By federal law, McEntarfer’s appointment ends in 2028. Trump fired her anyway because he was embarrassed by jobs data that didn’t match his own hype.
In May, the White House said that April’s jobs report “proved” that Trump was “revitalizing” the economy. In June, Trump posted, “GREAT JOBS NUMBERS.” After the Labor Department released revised jobs figures for those months — a common practice because jobs reports are sample projections that get adjusted when actual employer data come in — Trump fired the messenger.
Trump’s penchant for hiding and falsifying data has put American corporations and the economy in more danger. Just as he scrubbed government websites of climate data to bolster his fossil fuel donors, just as he ordered the Smithsonian to remove an exhibit accurately reflecting his own impeachments, Trump thinks reality is whatever he says it is.
As he fantasizes about returning America to the Gilded Age, where robber barons extracted the earth’s resources for unimaginable profit while laborers worked for starvation wages, he’s forgetting that his oligarch donors need accurate economic data too. At least oligarchs creating real products and delivering real services—as opposed to merely speculating in Trump’s image—need real, reliable, and uncooked data.
McEntarfer should sue
When Trump fired McEntarfer in a social media post, he declared that her numbers were “phony.” He wrote on Friday, “In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,” adding: “But, the good news is, our Country is doing GREAT!”
He said the numbers had been manipulated for political purposes, and announced he fired McEntarfer as a result.
Trump also baselessly accused McEntarfer of manipulating jobs numbers before the November election to advantage Kamala Harris. Trump said to reporters, “I believe the numbers were phony, just like they were before the election, and there were other times. So you know what I did? I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing.”
When asked what his source was, he said, “my opinion,” confirming that there was no evidence to back up his reckless claims, claims that permanently tanked the reputation of a celebrated career professional.
Presidents not immune from civil prosecution
No doubt Trump slurred McEntarfer based on his own “opinion” to avoid defamation liability, but an opinion that implies a false fact is still defamatory, it is still actionable, and presidents are not immune from civil lawsuits for defamation.
The four legal elements of defamation are easily found here: false statement; publication; negligence in repeating the falsehood; and reputational harm.
More, a president has immunity from civil lawsuits only for actions taken in furtherance of his core constitutional powers. One of the main “core constitutional powers” of a president is ensuring the faithful execution of laws, such that acting to impede the execution of federal law would fall outside core official responsibilities. (As an aside, even under the disastrous Trump v. US criminal immunity ruling, Trump’s J6 conduct would likely have fallen outside his core function, had it proceeded to trial.)
Trump knowingly and intentionally lied about the BLS commissioner in a manner that directly conflicts with the Department of Labor’s statutory mission; as such, it was not a “core Constitutional function.” Announcing that previous labor reports were “falsified” causes immediate reputational harm to the Commissioner, the Department of Labor, and the US economy overall. It directly impedes the accurate compilation of labor data, a charge mandated by the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act.
By implicitly directing that all future US data should be falsified to suit his own political narrative, Trump’s statements not only harm America’s economy, but they hinder rather than aid the faithful execution of laws.
As McEntarfer’s predecessor puts it, McEntarfer’s “totally groundless firing” sets a dangerous precedent and “undermines the statistical mission of the bureau.”
“We need accurate Jobs Numbers,” Trump told reporters, suggesting McEntarfer’s jobs numbers weren’t.
“She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified,” he added, suggesting McEntarfer was neither.
Missing the risible irony as he seeks manipulated jobs data for his own political purposes, Trump added, “Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.”
https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trump-lie-debunked
U.S. border agents have been directed to stop deporting migrants under President Trump’s ban on asylum claims, following a federal court order that said the measure could not be used to completely suspend humanitarian protections for asylum-seekers, two Department of Homeland Security officials told CBS News.
The move effectively lifts a sweeping policy that had closed the American asylum system to those entering the U.S. illegally or without proper documents. It’s a measure the second Trump administration has credited for a steep drop in illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, where officials last month reported the lowest monthly level of migrant apprehensions on record.
Mr. Trump’s asylum crackdown was unprecedented in scope. The proclamation underpinning it, issued just hours after he returned to the White House in January, gave U.S. border officials the power to summarily deport migrants without allowing them to request asylum, a right enshrined in American law for decades.
Mr. Trump said the extraordinary action was necessary due to what he called an “invasion” of migrants under the Biden administration, which faced record levels of illegal crossings at the southern border until it too restricted asylum last year.
On Friday, a federal appeals court lifted its pause on a lower judge’s ruling that found Mr. Trump’s decree violated U.S. asylum laws. While the appellate court narrowed the lower court’s order, saying Mr. Trump’s proclamation could be used to pause access to the asylum system, it also ruled the U.S. government could not disregard other laws that bar officials from deporting migrants to places where they could be tortured or persecuted.
Those laws require the U.S. to grant legal protections — known as “withholding of removal” and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture — to migrants who prove they would likely face persecution or torture if deported to their home countries. Unlike asylum, those protections do not allow recipients to get permanent U.S. residency or protect them from being deported to a third party country.
Officials at Customs and Border Protection were instructed this weekend to halt deportations under Mr. Trump’s proclamation and to process migrants under U.S. immigration law, which affords foreigners on American soil the right to request humanitarian refuge, the two DHS officials said, requesting anonymity to discuss an internal directive.
CBP officials received instructions to process migrants through different mechanisms, including through a fast-track deportation procedure known as expedited removal, according to the DHS officials. While expedited removal allows for relatively quick deportations, migrants processed under the policy are also allowed to apply for asylum if they convince officials that their fears of being harmed if deported are credible.
For months, U.S. border agents had been using Mr. Trump’s asylum ban to swiftly deport those crossing into the country illegally to Mexico, their home countries and, in some cases, third party nations that had agreed to accept them. Internally, officials have dubbed those deportations “212(f) repatriations,” in reference to the legal authority Mr. Trump invoked in his proclamation.
While the lifting of Mr. Trump’s order may reopen the U.S. asylum system, those caught crossing the southern border illegally will likely remain detained while officials vet their claims. The Trump administration has largely stopped the practice of releasing migrants into the U.S. while they await their court dates, limiting releases to cases involving extraordinary circumstances.
The Justice Department could also try to get Friday’s court order suspended by the Supreme Court, in a bid to revive Mr. Trump’s asylum ban.
In a statement to CBS News late Monday, CBP said Friday’s court order affirmed “the President’s authority to deny asylum to aliens participating in an invasion into the United States.”
CBP said the Trump administration is “committed to ensuring that aliens illegally entering the United States face consequences for their criminal actions.”
“This includes prosecution to the fullest extent of the law and rapid removal from the United States,” the agency added. “CBP will continue to process illegal/inadmissible aliens consistent with law, including mandatory detention and expedited removal.”
After soaring to record levels in late 2023, illegal border crossings dropped sharply in former President Biden’s last year office, following increased efforts by Mexico to interdict U.S.-bound migrants and an order issued by Biden in June 2024 to restrict access to the American asylum system. But they have plunged even further since Mr. Trump took office for a second time.
In July, Border Patrol encountered just 4,600 migrants along the southern border, the lowest monthly tally ever publicly reported by the agency. It’s also a figure the Biden administration recorded in 24 hours on many days.
Children of H-1B visa holders may now age out of their protected legal status while their parents apply for green cards, under a Trump administration policy change announced Friday.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it was reversing a Biden administration policy that prevented young adults from losing their legal status if a parent’s application was still pending when their children reached age 21.
Why It Matters
Around 200,000 children and young adults could be affected by the change, which comes amid a flurry of alterations at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to bring policies in line with President Donald Trump’s directives to tighten immigration controls.
What To Know
The USCIS policy change affects those who fall under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which the administration of former President Joe Biden had allowed in February 2023 to apply to some children as soon as their parents became eligible to apply for a green card.
That meant that even if they “aged out” during the wait for a green card, they would not lose legal status.
On Friday, the Trump administration rolled those extensions back, saying that CSPA protections would once again only apply when a visa becomes available via the Department of State. USCIS said this would create a more consistent approach for those applying for adjustment of status and immigrant visas.
With long wait times for adjustment of status applications, particularly for H-1B and other temporary visa holders, this could now mean that when a dependent child turns 21, they lose their legal status and may have to leave the U.S., even if they have lived in the country for most or all of their lives.
Doug Rand, a DHS official during the Biden administration, said that many of those children would be American to their core, but would now be forced to the back of the line for a green card.
What People Are Saying
USCIS, in a news release: “The Feb. 14, 2023, policy resulted in inconsistent treatment of aliens who applied for adjustment of status in the United States versus aliens outside the United States who applied for an immigrant visa with the Department of State.”
Doug Rand, former DHS official, in a statement shared with Newsweek: “Back in 2023, the team I was part of at USCIS made a sensible policy change to make this situation a little less awful for a few more young people. Basically, the government has a choice about whether certain people who “age out” of their immigration status can still hang on to their parents’ place in line for a green card some day.
“We chose yes. Today, the Trump administration is choosing no.”
What’s Next
The new guidance will apply to requests filed after August 15, with those already in process not affected.
An Ohio city whose Haitian migrants were disparaged by a Donald Trump falsehood last year as he pitched voters on his plans for an immigration crackdown is now bracing to defend the community against possible deportation.
A group of about 100 community members, clergy and Haitian leaders in Springfield gathered this week for several days of training sessions as they prepare to defend potential deportees and provide them refuge.
“We feel that this is something that our faith requires, that people of faith are typically law-abiding people — that’s who we want to be — but if there are laws that are unjust, if there are laws that don’t respect human dignity, we feel that our commitment to Christ requires that we put ourselves in places where we may face some of the same threats,” said Carl Ruby, senior pastor of Central Christian Church.
Ruby said the ultimate goal of the group is to persuade the Trump administration to reverse its decision to terminate legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status, or TPS.
“One way of standing with the Haitians is getting out the message of how much value they bring to the city of Springfield,” he said. “It would be an absolute disaster if we lost 10,000 of our best workers overnight because their TPS ends and they can no longer work.”
In lieu of that, Ruby said, participants in the effort are learning how to help Haitians in other ways. That includes building relationships, accompanying migrants to appointments with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and providing their families with physical shelter.
A city in the crosshairs
Springfield found itself in an unwelcome spotlight last year after Trump amplified false rumors during a presidential debate that members of the mid-size city’s burgeoning Haitian population were abducting and eating cats and dogs. It was the type of inflammatory and anti-immigrant rhetoric he promoted throughout his campaign.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in June that it would terminate TPS as soon as Sept. 2 for about 500,000 Haitians who are already in the United States, some of whom have lived here for more than a decade. The department said conditions in the island nation have improved adequately to allow their safe return. The United Nations contradicts that assertion, saying that the economic and humanitarian crisis in Haiti has only worsened with the Trump administration’s cuts in foreign aid.
The announcement came three months after the administration revoked legal protections for thousands of Haitians who arrived legally in the United States under a humanitarian parole program as part of a series of measures implemented to curb immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal judge’s order preventing the administration from revoking the parole program.
Last month, a federal judge in New York blocked the administration from accelerating an end to Haitians’ TPS protections, which the Biden administration had extended through at least Feb. 3, 2026, citing gang violence, political unrest, a major earthquake in 2021 and other factors.
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said at the time that the Trump administration would eventually prevail and that its predecessors treated TPS like a “de facto asylum program.” In the meantime, the government has set the expiration date back to early February.
TPS allows people already in the United States to stay and work legally if their homelands are deemed unsafe. Immigrants from 17 countries, including Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan and Lebanon, were receiving those protections before Trump took office for his second term in January.
Residents ponder next steps
Charla Weiss, a founding member of Undivided, the group that hosted the Springfield workshop, said participants were asked the question of how far they would go to help Haitian residents avoid deportation.
“The question that I know was before me is, how far am I willing to go to support my passion about the unlawful detainment and deportation of Haitians, in particular here in Springfield?” she said.
Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a longtime supporter of the Haitian community, was briefed by Springfield leaders during a visit to the city Friday. He told reporters that the state is bracing for the potential of mass layoffs in the region as a result of the TPS policy change, a negative for the workers and the companies that employ them.
“It’s not going to be good,” he said.
