Irish Star: Trump suffers a ‘senior moment’ after not recognizing athlete standing right next to him

Donald Trump appeared to suffer a senior moment today as he failed to recognize the person he was introducing during a bill singing ceremony.

Today, the president signed an executive order to expand his council on sports, fitness, and nutrition, including the reinstatement of a previously discontinued fitness test for children. He was joined by a number of professional athletes who will be members of the White House sports council. Pro-golfer Bryson DeChambeau will be the chair of the council. Trump introduced each council member with a brief synopsis of their achievements, including Chief Content Officer of WWE, Triple H.

Trump looked directly at Triple H, calling him “an amazing athlete” and his “friend for a long time.” However, Trump then appeared to look around the room for him, forgetting that he was standing right beside him.

Trump also stumbled over his words right before the awkward moment, causing many to believe that he suffered a senile moment. Trump’s cognitive health has been the topic of conversation for several months now.

“Trump looks tired and bloated. I think he is sicker than the White House said a few weeks ago,” someone on X said about the gaffe.

“OMFG. That’s probably the clearest visible evidence I’ve seen that he’s losing it. Yikes!” someone else wrote. “8 seconds from the first time he looked at him to where the hell is he? Dementia is real!” another person commented.

Other members will include Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker and former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor, who is a registered sex offender.

Today’s executive order initiates the revival of the Presidential Fitness Test in public schools. The test, first introduced by President Johnson in 1966, rewards “excellence in physical education,” by anointing children who receive the highest scores with presidential recognition.

President Barack Obama, who has been targeted by Trump in recent weeks, retired the fitness test in 2012, replacing it with the FitnessGram assessment, that focused on bettering individual health.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement: “President Trump wants every young American to have the opportunity to emphasize healthy, active lifestyles – creating a culture of strength and excellence for years to come.”

The White House said that the test is part of the administration’s goal to develop “bold and innovative fitness goals” for young Americans, in order to foster a new generation of healthy, active individuals.

The changes come as the US prepares to host a number of major sporting events in the coming years, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup followed by the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Memory care beckons!

https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/trump-suffers-senior-moment-after-35655330

Washington Post: Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum

The Smithsonian said it restored the display to an earlier version, which notes that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal.”

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in July removed references to President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit display. A person familiar with the exhibit plans, who was not authorized to discuss them publicly, said the change came about as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director.

After this story published, the Smithsonian said in a statement that “a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”

A temporary label including content about Trump’s impeachments had been on display since September 2021 at the Washington museum, a Smithsonian spokesperson told The Washington Post, adding that it was intended to be a short-term addition to address current events. Now, the exhibit notes that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal.”

In addition to describing Trump’s two impeachments, the temporary label — which read “Case under redesign (history happens)” — also offered information about the impeachments of presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, as well as Richard M. Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned. The Post viewed a photograph of the temporary signage.

Now that display has returned to the way it appeared in 2008, according to the Smithsonian spokesperson.

“In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the ‘Limits of Presidential Power’ section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The section of this exhibition covers CongressThe Supreme CourtImpeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.”

The change coincides with broader concerns about political interference at the Smithsonian and how the institution charged with preserving American history could be shaped by the Trump administration’s efforts to exert more control over its work.

“The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden” opened in 2000 and was curated by a team that included then-museum director Spencer Crew, curator Harry Rubenstein and historian Lonnie G. Bunch III, who now leads the institute as secretary.

The impeachment case includes a photograph of the prosecutors in Andrew Johnson’s 1868 case, copies of the investigative report that launched Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings in 1999 and a damaged filing cabinet from the Watergate scandal that would prompt Nixon to resign in 1974.

The online companion for the display briefly mentions Trump’s impeachments, but does not provide any further information about the cases. And a search of the history museum’s collection for “impeachment” yields 125 results for Johnson, Nixon and Clinton — and a single “Impeach Trump” button from a 2017 environmental protest.

The Smithsonian spokesperson said that a large gallery like “The American Presidency” requires a “significant amount of time and funding to update and renew.” Elsewhere in the exhibition, however, visitors can find more recent items, including commemorative pins from Trump and Joe Biden’s inaugurations in 2017 and 2021 and a large wall display featuring every U.S. president.

In January 2020, following Trump’s first impeachment, a political history curator at the American History Museum told The Post that he was on a quest to acquire the right objects to tell the story of Trump’s first impeachment. At the time, he could not predict when the display would be updated, but he said work was underway to change labels and add items.

The Smithsonian that month also announced its plans to update the impeachment section, reaffirming its commitment to actively engage “with the history, spirit and complexity of the United States’ democratic experiment by collecting, documenting and sharing the American political system, including presidential history.”

Trump is the only president in history to have been impeached twice. In 2019, he was charged by the House with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his attempts to withhold military aid meant for Ukraine and pressure its government to investigate his political rival Biden. He was acquitted by the Senate in 2020. Then, just over a year later, Trump was impeached again, for incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was acquitted a second time, after leaving office.

Since returning to the White House in January for his second term, Trump has attempted to exert influence over prominent cultural institutions, including by taking over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, making drastic changes at the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and imposing budget cuts on the National Park Service.

In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate “anti-American ideology” across the Smithsonian museums and “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.”

Months later, Trump attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, for being a “highly partisan” person — though he had no authority to do so. The White House later provided a list of 17 instances it said supported the president’s claims about her, including the caption for the museum’s presidential portrait of Trump mentioning his two impeachments and “incitement of insurrection” for the events of Jan. 6.

In response, the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents reasserted in June that only the institution’s secretary could fire museum directors, but also announced it would scrutinize content across its museum for partisan bias. “As directed by the Board of Regents, we will undertake an assessment of the Institution, evaluating the need for any changes to policies, procedures, or personnel, and I will share our findings and recommendations with the Board,” Bunch wrote in an email to Smithsonian employees. Shortly after, Sajet announced her departure, explaining to staff that she was leaving because her presence had become a distraction from the Smithsonian’s mission.

Last week, the celebrated painter Amy Sherald pulled an upcoming exhibit from the Portrait Gallery, citing concerns that the museum considered removing her painting of a transgender woman posing as the Statue of Liberty.

“While no single person is to blame, it’s clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role,” Sherald said in a statement.

History maybe temporarily hidden or rewritten, but the disgrace of King Donald will be back with a vengeance in due time, and probably with a much larger display!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2025/07/31/trump-impeachment-smithsonian


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/smithsonian-removes-trump-from-impeachment-exhibit-in-american-history-museum/ar-AA1JGees

Bradenton Herald: Defiant Mayor Signs Executive Order in Blow to ICE

Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mayor Tim Keller has signed an executive order mandating city departments to report any Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities in city facilities. He reaffirmed Albuquerque’s commitment to civil rights and ensured that city resources will not be used for federal immigration enforcement unless required by law. The action comes in response to the ongoing federal enforcement of immigration measures under President Donald Trump.

Keller said, “From day one, I made it clear that we will not be intimidated by harmful federal policies—and we’ve never wavered from our commitment to civil rights and public safety.” He added, “This Executive Order makes it clear that we will not stand by silently as our neighbors and friends are living in fear, and we will protect due process for all people living in our City.”

The order directs city departments to support families impacted by federal actions in housing, healthcare, jobs, and education. Keller stated that immigrants have added $12 billion annually to New Mexico’s economy.

Keller argued the city must serve all residents, regardless of immigration status. City councilors have planned to draft legislation to codify the executive order following recess.

A spokesperson for Keller stated, “The City actively partners with community organizations to ensure that services, including housing, healthcare, employment, and education assistance are accessible to those impacted by federal immigration actions. These services are provided to all residents and neighbors, regardless of immigration status. We do not inquire about immigration status when offering assistance.”

The spokesperson added, “Albuquerque is proud to welcome immigrants and values the rich diversity of our community. Our focus remains on fostering safety, inclusion, and support for everyone who calls our city home.”

A city spokesperson stated that Albuquerque has worked with community groups to ensure affected residents have equitable access regarding essential services.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/defiant-mayor-signs-executive-order-in-blow-to-ice/ss-AA1JB3t5

Fox News: MI Dems seek to prosecute mask-wearing ICE

A Michigan Democratic effort would open up ICE agents to state prosecution if they conduct immigration enforcement operations while wearing masks that conceal their identity.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Betsy Coffia, D-Traverse City, said Friday ICE’s masking-up “mirror the tactics of secret police in authoritarian regimes and strays from the norms that define legitimate local law enforcement.”

“It confuses and frightens communities,” she said. “Those who protect and serve our community should not do so behind a concealed identity.”

A banner on the dais from which Coffia announced the bill read, “Justice needs no masks.”

State Rep. Noah Arbit, D-West Bloomfield, added his name as a co-sponsor and said in a statement when a person is unable to discern whether someone apprehending them is a government authority or not, it “shreds the rule of law.”

“That is why the Trump administration and the Republican Party are the most pro-crime administration and political party that we have ever seen,” Arbit said.

Attorney General Dana Nessel, who was one of several state prosecutors to demand Congress pass similar legislation at the federal level, also threw her support behind the bill.

“Imagine a set of circumstances where somebody might be a witness to a serious crime and that defendant has some friends go out and literally just mask up and go apprehend somebody at a courthouse,” Nessel told the Traverse City NBC affiliate.

Nessel also lent her name to an amicus brief this month supporting a case brought against ICE over tactics used during its raids in Los Angeles.

When masked, heavily armed federal agents operate with no identification, they threaten public safety and erode public trust,” Nessel said in the brief.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mi-dems-seek-prosecute-mask-wearing-ice-after-state-instituted-500-fine-being-maskless-during-covid

Law & Crime: ‘Lacks any basis in fact’: San Francisco warns judge that Trump admin is ‘ignoring’ injunction by again trying to limit funds

A coalition of cities and counties led by San Francisco is imploring a federal court to continue forcing the Trump administration to comply with a preliminary injunction and subsequent clarification – and accusing the government of expressly violating the orders in question.

In the underlying litigation, the plaintiffs sued President Donald Trump and others over two executive orders — “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” and “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” — issued in January and February, respectively, which threatened to cut off all federal funds for jurisdictions deemed to run afoul of federal immigration priorities.

On April 24, Senior U.S. District Judge William Orrick, a Barack Obama appointee, all-but termed the state of affairs a rerun and enjoined the executive orders with a preliminary injunction – likening the latest funding threats to a series of similarly-kiboshed threats issued during the first Trump administration.

Then, on April 28, Trump issued what the plaintiffs, in a motion to enforce the injunction, termed “yet another” executive order “which triples down on his threat to defund ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions.” In turn, on May 9, Orrick shut the government down again.

Now, the plaintiffs say the Trump administration is up to its old tricks.

On Friday, in a six-page reply to a recent defendants’ response to the court’s order, San Francisco asked the court to make sure the Trump administration is not illegally cutting funds from a specific U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program.

“This Court has clarified that ‘[t]he Preliminary Injunction in this case reaches any subsequent Executive Order or Government action that poses the same coercive threat to eliminate or suspend federal funding based on the Government’s assertion that a jurisdiction is a ‘sanctuary’ jurisdiction,” the motion begins. “The Court has also already reminded Defendants that ‘[t]he Government cannot avoid liability down the line by ‘hewing to the narrow letter of the injunction’ while ‘simultaneously ignoring its spirit.’ Yet Defendants are doing exactly that.”

The latest alleged violation is due to a new condition on billions in previously-awarded anti-homelessness grants.

The new condition reads as follows:

No state or unit of general local government that receives funding under this grant may use that funding in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.

San Francisco and the myriad other cities and counties have two major objections to this language.

First, the plaintiffs say it’s yet another violation of the injunction.

“Defendants have not demonstrated any connection between the conscription of local governments into federal immigration enforcement, and the housing and supportive services funded by the [anti-homelessness] grants—nor could they, because there is none,” the motion argues.

Second, the plaintiffs suggest the ensuing ordeal to defend the new, anti-immigrant language is ample parts red herring.

“Defendants point to a provision authorizing ‘other’ conditions that further the purposes of the authorizing statute, Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, but that statute does not relate to immigration enforcement,” the motion goes on. “Defendants next argue that the grant conditions quoted above ‘merely require compliance with federal immigration laws,’—a claim that lacks any basis in fact.”

The plaintiffs go on to argue that the court’s injunction – and clarifying order – have already dealt with the prospect of attaching immigration enforcement-related conditions on anti-homelessness funds. And, the plaintiffs say, the court has never been convinced.

“The Court’s Order Regarding Disputes found that Defendants had ‘not yet attempted to show the required nexus’ between ‘the kinds of services that the HUD [anti-homelessness] grants provide—safety-net services for the cities’ most vulnerable populations, including the homeless, veterans, and unaccompanied youth’ and ‘immigration enforcement,'” the motion goes on. “Defendants still have not shown (and cannot show) any such nexus.”

San Francisco accuses the Trump administration of trying to claim a relationship – between the HUD funds and immigration law – that does not exist. Rather, the plaintiffs say, the government is simply paraphrasing one of the enjoined executive orders to make it sound like the purported statutory condition.

From the motion, at length:

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion that the HUD [anti-homelessness] grant condition “merely requires recipients to comply with federal immigration laws,”  that grant condition is plainly based on the enjoined Executive Orders and directs the withholding of funding based on lawful policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The HUD [anti-homelessness] grant condition is pulled nearly word-for-word from the fatally ambiguous language of Section 2(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14,218.

The U.S. Department of Justice, for its part, also argues the recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed down the pathways to nationwide, or universal, injunctions is relevant to the dispute over the anti-homelessness funds.

“Defendants note the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. provides that injunctive relief must be limited to the parties in a litigation,” the government’s motion reads. “On that basis alone, extending this Court’s preliminary injunction to HUD as a non-party is improper.”

San Francisco says this argument essentially gets the high court’s decision not entirely unlike exactly backwards.

“Defendants misconstrue CASA,” the plaintiffs’ filing goes on. “That case addressed jurisprudential concerns about extending relief to plaintiffs who are not party to a lawsuit. Here, unlike in CASA, the Court did not issue a universal injunction but instead limited relief to the Plaintiffs. In order to ensure that Plaintiffs obtain complete relief, the Court enjoined ‘named defendants and any other agency or individual acting in concert with or as an agent of the President or other defendants to implement’ the enjoined Executive Orders.”

In other words, San Francisco explains how the justices issued an opinion about the propriety of fashioning injunctive relief for too many plaintiffs – coming down against broad relief. The DOJ, however, appears to be trying to extend the CASA ruling into a rule about extending the reach of an injunction to another defendant. This, San Francisco notes, is not at all what the Supreme Court addressed.

The Trump administration, in a related argument, also says allowing the plaintiffs to challenge the immigration language amounts to “overreach” that “would impermissibly expand this lawsuit far beyond what Plaintiffs have pled.”

San Francisco says both of these arguments are irrelevant – because the court did not ask for such briefing – and incorrect.

Again, the motion, at length:

Defendants’ non-responsive arguments about notice pleading and the propriety of nationwide injunctions are meritless. As this Court has held, Plaintiffs’ claims for relief—upon which they are likely to succeed—are based on ample pleadings and evidence regarding the Executive Orders’ explicit threat to end all federal funding “to the Cities and Counties (the plaintiffs in this case).” Accordingly, the Court’s Preliminary Injunction fairly reaches any federal agency “action to withhold from, freeze, or condition federal funds” to Plaintiffs on the basis of the Executive Orders. Moreover, because the Court’s relief applies only to the Plaintiff Cities and Counties, Trump v. CASA is inapplicable.

Daily Mail: Court rules on Trump’s birthright citizenship plan

A federal appeals court delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it unconstitutional. It’s the latest step in an ongoing battle between Trump and various judges in states far over his plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal migrants.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump´s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. ‘The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order´s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,’ the majority wrote.

The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump´s effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration´s attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase ‘subject to United States jurisdiction’ in the amendment means that citizenship isn´t automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14934995/Court-decision-Donald-Trump-birthright-citizenship.html

Law & Crime: ‘Flip-side of the same coin’: Trump-appointed judge dismisses White House lawsuit by using Supreme Court precedent that tossed nationwide injunctions

The Trump administration may not terminate its agencies’ collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), in large part because allowing it to do so would be similar to the “judicial overreach” that the Supreme Court sought to mitigate in a recent ruling in favor of President Donald Trump, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

The White House’s attempt to toss out labor unions from key federal agencies, as U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas put it, boils down to the authority that the different branches of government possess.

And on this matter, because the Trump administration’s lawsuit was preemptive – that is, asking the court to approve of their future conduct in breaking the CBAs as part of an executive order – the judge found that his hands were tied.

To explain why he came to that decision, the judge pointed to the highest court in the land and its recent case in Trump v. CASA that severely limited the power of U.S. district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

“This Court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, wherein the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Albright, a Trump appointee from the president’s first term, wrote in a 27-page filing.

In making its decision in the landmark birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court found that universal injunctions were not present for most of the country’s history. And in this case, the district judge opined, the White House asked a court to go a step further – by asking for relief to do something before having even begun.

Albright wrote, at length:

Here, pre-enforcement declaratory judgments pre-approving an Executive Order have been conspicuously nonexistent for all of this Nation’s history. CASA was not decided upon the issue of standing before us today. Nonetheless, the practical impact of the holding in CASA as well as the core legal principle espoused by the Supreme Court remains central to this Court’s decision today— “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” Absent a justiciable case or controversy, this Court will not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Trump’s March 27 Executive Order 14251 – titled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs – declared to “enhance the national security of the United States” by having agencies “have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.”

On the same day, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to the relevant agencies – which include the Department of Defense and Department of State – that they are “no longer required to collectively bargain with Federal unions.”

It is also on this fateful March day that the administration filed its lawsuit against the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest labor union representing federal workers, seeking pre-approval for the termination of the CBAs. The timing of that action is where the district judge takes issue, finding that no “controversy” requiring him to act existed at the time of the lawsuit because the executive order had not yet been publicly announced.

“It is difficult to imagine how the parties could have formed a concrete dispute over the Executive Order when that document had not yet been released to the public,” Albright wrote. And because a “controversy” could not be found, the White House did not have the legal authority to bring the case, and the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear it.

The Texas-based judge was not unsympathetic to the Trump administration’s position, however. Pointing to nearly 25 nationwide injunctions being filed in the first 100 days of the administration, Albright wrote: “The Court is sympathetic to the administration’s desire for legal certainty with respect to its ability to enforce its Executive Orders when faced with the unavoidable reality that a district court somewhere will likely issue a universal injunction.”

But, again pointing to the Supreme Court, he wrote that “it is appropriate to presume” district courts will follow the high court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA and “curtail the availability” of nationwide injunctions – thus helping ease their concerns.

Albright focused on the issue of precedent while underscoring how much the judiciary can step in on the executive branch’s behalf.

“Allowing the government to seek a declaratory judgment every time (as in this case) the Executive signs a new Executive Order appears to this Court to simply be an escalation in the battle to gain some advantage by being able to select the venue in which the litigation is filed,” he wrote. “The perception, whether correct or not, that one party or the other can gain advantage by selecting a favorable forum threatens the legitimacy of the federal courts.”

He then concluded by once again referencing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

“[T]he relief Plaintiffs now seek is roughly the flip-side of the same coin as the relief sought by litigants seeking nationwide injunctions against this Administration,” Albright wrote. “One litigant rushes off to select a forum it perceives to be favorable to enjoin an Executive Order; and the Administration now rushes to preempt that injunction with a declaratory judgment in its own forum of choice.”

“While the Court understands the reasoning behind the Administration’s response to what it perceives as improper judicial overreach, the solution to perceived judicial overreach is not more judicial overreach, but a return to the principles of judicial restraint and strict adherence to the constitutional limits imposed upon the federal judiciary,” he concluded.

Seeking a national injunction in support of executive order(s) not yet issued — that’s quite a stretch, and then some!

Human Rights Watch: “You Feel Like Your Life is Over”

Abusive Practices at Three Florida Immigration Detention Centers Since January 2025

Among the flurry of immigration-related executive orders marking the second presidential administration of Donald Trump is Executive Order 14159, establishing the policy of detaining individuals apprehended on suspicion of violating immigration laws for the duration of their removal proceedings “to the extent permitted by law.” President Trump’s call for mass deportations was matched by a surge in immigration detention nationally. In line with this policy, Trump issued dozens of other immigration-related executive orders and executive actions and signed into law the Laken Riley Act as part of a broader rollback of immigrants’ rights in the United States.

Within a month of the inauguration, the number of people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began increasing. Throughout 2024, an average of 37,500 people were detained in immigration detention in the US per day.[1] As of June 20, 2025, on any given day, over 56,000 people were in detention across the country, 40 percent more than in June 2024, and the highest detention population in the history of US immigration detention. As of June 15, immigration detention numbers were at an average of 56,400 per day, and nearly 72 percent of individuals detained had no criminal history.

Between January and June 2025, thousands were held in immigration detention at the Krome North Service Processing Center (Krome), the Broward Transitional Center (BTC), and the Federal Detention Center (FDC), in Florida, under conditions that flagrantly violate international human rights standards and the United States government’s own immigration detention standards. By March, the number of people in immigration detention at Krome had increased 249 percent from the levels before the January inauguration. At times in March, the facility detained more than three times its operational capacity of inmates. As of June 20, 2025, the number of people in immigration detention at the three facilities was at 111 percent from the levels before the inauguration.

The change was qualitative as well as quantitative. Detainees in three Florida facilities told Human Rights Watch that ICE detention officers and private contractor guards treated them in a degrading and dehumanizing manner. Some were detained shackled for prolonged periods on buses without food, water, or functioning toilets; there was extreme overcrowding in freezing holding cells where detainees were forced to sleep on cold concrete floors under constant fluorescent lighting; and many were denied access to basic hygiene and medical care.

Five years ago, in April 2020, Human Rights Watch, together with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Justice Center, reported on conditions in immigration detention under the first Trump administration. Human Rights Watch, along with other governmental and nongovernmental expert and oversight bodies, have carried out numerous investigations of immigration detention conditions in the United States. This report reveals that while the second Trump administration is using similar abusive practices, their impacts are exacerbated due to severe overcrowding caused by new state and local policies, including in Florida, where this report is focused. While these latest findings in Florida inform some of the policy recommendations in this report, the recommendations are also grounded in these years of investigations and findings.

This report finds that staff at the three detention facilities researchers examined subjected detained individuals to dangerously substandard medical care, overcrowding, abusive treatment, and restrictions on access to legal and psychosocial support. Officers denied detainees critical medication and detained some incommunicado in solitary confinement as an apparent punishment for seeking mental health care. Facility officers returned some detainees to detention directly from hospital stays with no follow-up treatment. They detained others in solitary confinement or transferred them without notice, disrupting legal representation. They forced them to sleep on cold concrete floors without bedding and gave them food which was sometimes substandard, and in many instances ignored their medical requirements. Some officers treated detainees in dehumanizing ways.

These findings match those of an April 2025 submission by Americans for Immigrant Justice (AIJ) to the United Nations Human Rights Council, which documented severe and systemic human rights violations at Krome. Combined with years of investigations by Human Rights Watch and other independent experts and groups in the US, they paint a picture of an immigration detention system that degrades, intimidates, and punishes immigrants.

The report is based on interviews with eleven currently and recently detained individuals, some of which took place at Krome and BTC; family members of seven detainees; and 14 immigration lawyers, as well as data analysis. Two of the facilities, Krome and BTC, are operated by private contractors under ICE oversight. On May 20, 2025 and again on June 11, 2025, Human Rights Watch sent letters to the heads of all three prison facilities, the acting director of ICE, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the heads of the two companies managing Krome and BTC, with a summary of our findings and questions. At the time of publication, Human Rights Watch had only received one response from Akima Global Services, LLC (Akima), the company that runs Krome, stating “we cannot comment publicly on the specifics of our engagement.”

One woman described arriving at Krome–a facility that typically only holds men–late at night on January 28. Officers then confined her for days with dozens of other women without bedding or privacy, in a cell normally used only during incarceration intake procedures. “There was only one toilet, and it was covered in feces,” she said. “We begged the officers to let us clean it, but they just said sarcastically, ‘Housekeeping will come soon.’ No one ever came.”

A man recalled the frigid conditions in the intake cell where he was detained: “They turned up the air conditioning… You could not fall asleep because it was so cold. I thought I was going to experience hypothermia.”

This report documents serious violations of medical standards. Detention facility staff routinely denied individuals with diabetes, asthma, kidney conditions, and chronic pain their prescribed medications and access to doctors. In one case at Krome, a woman with gallstones began vomiting and lost consciousness after being denied care for several days. Officers returned her to the same cell after emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder—still without medication.

It is concerning that women were held for intake processing that could take days or even weeks at a facility primarily and historically used to detain men. Officers at Krome used the facility’s role as a men’s detention center to justify denying women held there access to medical care and appropriate sanitation conditions.

Authorities transferred a man with chronic illnesses from FDC to BTC without the prescription medication he needed daily, despite his having repeatedly reminded staff of his medical record. After he collapsed and was hospitalized, his family discovered he had been registered at the hospital under a false name. He was returned to detention in shackles.

This substandard medical care may have been linked to two deaths, one at Krome and one at BTC.

Staff were dismissive or abusive even when detainees were undergoing a visibly obvious medical crisis. For example, staff ignored a detained immigrant who began coughing blood in a crowded holding cell for hours. In that case, unrest ensued, and a Disturbance Control Team stormed the cell, forcing the men in it to lie face down on the wet, dirty floor while officers zip-tied their hands behind their backs. A detainee said he heard an officer order the cell’s CCTV camera feed to be turned off. Another detainee said a team member slapped him while shouting, “Shut the f*ck up.”

During another incident, officers made men eat while shackled with their hands behind their backs after forcing the group to wait hours for lunch: “We had to bend over and eat off the chairs with our mouths, like dogs,” one man said.

Women and men alike reported that seeking help—especially mental health support—could lead to punishment and retaliation. At BTC, authorities put detainees who complained of emotional distress in solitary confinement for weeks, creating a chilling effect. One woman said: “If you ask for help, they isolate you. If you cry, they might take you away for two weeks. So, people stay silent.”

With the exclusion of trips to a prison library at Krome, and painting sessions at BTC, authorities provided no educational or vocational activities whatsoever.

Lockdowns—during which staff denied detained people access to medical staff and basic recreation—were sometimes imposed only because the facility was short-staffed. Staff denied individuals access to medical staff and the ability to go outdoors at all, sometimes for days at a time. Detention center lockdowns, transfers without notice, and limited phone privileges have disrupted people’s ability to communicate with their families and their lawyers, hindering their ability to prepare their cases and exacerbating ongoing mental health concerns.

The treatment of detainees by staff at the three detention facilities appears to be in clear violation of ICE’s own standards, including the 2011 Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) governing Krome and BTC, and the 2019 National Detention Standards (NDS) governing the detention of immigrants at FDC. Conditions in the centers also violated US obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and key standards articulated under the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules).

The Trump administration’s one-track immigration policy, singularly focused on mass deportations will continue to send more people into immigration detention facilities that do not have the capacity to hold them and will only worsen the conditions described in this report.

There is a growing number of agreements—223—between Florida’s local law enforcement and ICE related to detention and/or deportation of immigrants that come to the attention of, or are in custody of local law enforcement, but are non-citizens. These are known as 287(g) agreements, authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). These agreements, combined with Florida’s state-level policies regarding immigration enforcement, and the broad application of federal mandatory detention policies, have led to a dramatic increase in arrests and detentions. Florida has, by large measure, the highest proportion of law enforcement agencies enrolled in the program of any state. Over 76 percent of Florida’s agencies have signed an agreement. In the next ranked state, Wyoming, only 11 percent of agencies have signed up.[2]

Under a January 2025 national law, the Laken Riley Act, an immigrant charged with any one of a broad range of criminal offenses, including theft and shoplifting, is subject to mandatory detention by ICE.

Other actions taken since January 2025 at the national level include designating some immigrants as “enemy aliens” and deporting them to incommunicado detention and abusive conditions in El Salvador; removing migrants and asylum seekers to countries like Panama and Costa Rica, of which they are not nationals, while denying them any opportunity to claim asylum; targeting birthright citizenship; expanding the use of rapid-fire “expedited removal” procedures (allowing the entry of removal orders without procedural guarantees such as the right to counsel, to appear before a judge, to present evidence, or to appeal); terminating parole and temporary protected status for people from various countries with widespread human rights violations, such as Venezuela, Haiti, and Afghanistan; and ending refugee admissions entirely except for South Africans of Afrikaner ethnicity or other racial minorities, under a policy “justified” by fear of future persecution.

Layered on top of all of this is the Trump administration’s decision to rescind the “sensitive locations” memo that previously protected immigrants from enforcement actions when at schools, medical clinics, churches and courts, putting even more people at risk of detention.

One person interviewed for this report was detained after attending a scheduled appointment with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and another was detained while at an appointment with ICE. An activist who provides support to immigrants outside the ICE office in Miramar, Florida every Wednesday said people are increasingly skipping their appointments out of fear they will be arrested on the spot. “I’ve seen cars gathering dust in the parking lot,” she said, “because people went inside for an appointment and never came out.”

The result of all of these federal and state developments is an increasing climate of fear in which immigrants—many with no criminal conviction—avoid police, immigration appointments, and even hospitals, places of worship, and schools for fear of being detained and deported. Avoiding these institutions and services has a profound effect on daily life and potentially on the prospects of that individual and their family members for the future. Putting people in a position that they are too fearful to seek needed medical care and practice their religion is a violation of basic human rights.

A man from Colombia, detained while he was at someone else’s home and detained for 63 days but never accused of any crime, said:

We want to be in the United States. It seems like a great country to us. It seems like a country of many opportunities but from the bottom of my heart, I tell you that all of this has been poorly handled through a campaign of hate… You see it inside immigration detention—the guards treat you like garbage. Even if they speak Spanish, they pretend not to understand. It’s like psychological abuse… you feel like your life is over.

To address the abuses documented in this report, Human Rights Watch calls on the United States government to end the use of 287(g) agreements that entwine local law enforcement and immigration enforcement and in doing so erode community trust and public safety.

ICE, its contractors, and local governments should use immigration detention only as a last resort and increase rights-respecting case management programs, such as alternatives to detention. ICE and its contractors should also end the use of solitary confinement and ensure timely medical and mental health care. To ensure that conditions for detained immigrants comply with the United States’ own standards, staff in detention facilities should be trained in human rights and trauma-informed care. Facilities should adopt policies that guarantee access to legal counsel, and that prioritize safety, dignity, and due process for all individuals in custody. Detention facilities should also meet international and national standards, and independent oversight is urgently needed to investigate abuses and enforce accountability.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/07/21/you-feel-like-your-life-is-over/abusive-practices-at-three-florida-immigration

Law & Crime: ‘Violates the First Amendment’: Judge bars Trump admin from imposing sanctions on US human rights advocates who work for international court

A federal judge in Maine on Friday barred the Trump administration from enforcing sanctions on two U.S. citizens and human rights advocates who work with the International Criminal Court (ICC).

On April 11, Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan, a human rights nonprofit leader and lawyer, respectively, filed a 39-page lawsuit against President Donald Trump and several other members of his administration over an executive order that imposes sanctions on the ICC, prohibits certain interactions with designated ICC officials, and threatens both civil and criminal penalties for any such violations.

The lawsuit was premised on the idea that the sanctions “violate their First Amendment rights, and those of others like them, by prohibiting their constitutionally protected speech.” The plaintiffs, in late April, requested a preliminary injunction barring the government “from imposing civil or criminal penalties on them” for “provision of speech-based services” to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor (OTP).

Now, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen, a Barack Obama appointee, has granted that requested relief in a 16-page order.

“[T]he Executive Order appears to burden substantially more speech than necessary,” the judge wrote. “Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have established likely success on the merits of their First Amendment challenge.”

The government argued Trump’s order advanced a “compelling” and “important” interest in “protecting the personnel of the United States and its allies from investigation, arrest, detention, and prosecution by the ICC without the consent of the United States or its allies.”

The judge, however, found the executive order too broadly written and mused that it “appears to restrict substantially more speech than necessary to further that end.”

In Executive Order 14203, titled, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,” the 45th and 47th president said he was motivated by the ICC’s “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and [its] close ally Israel.”

The court takes stock of the president’s cited justification for issuing the sanctions, at length:

The Executive Order condemns the ICC’s investigations of U.S. and Israeli personnel and its issuance of arrest warrants for Israel’s current Prime Minister and former Minister of Defense. The Executive Order, emphasizing that neither the U.S. nor Israel is a party to the ICC’s founding treaty, asserts that the ICC’s conduct “threatens to infringe upon” U.S. sovereignty and “undermin[es]” the “critical national security and foreign policy work” of the United States, Israel, and other U.S. allies

But, the court notes, the plaintiffs’ work has nothing to do with the United States or Israel. Rather, the court explains, Smith’s work has focused on “the OTP’s investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes against the ethnic minority Rohingya people in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.” And Radhakrishnan’s work has focused on “matters involving sexual and gender-based violence, particularly in Afghanistan.”

The judge then applies the executive order as written to the facts alleged by the plaintiff’s about their work for the ICC’s OTP.

“The Executive Order broadly prohibits any speech-based services that benefit the Prosecutor, regardless of whether those beneficial services relate to an ICC investigation of the United States, Israel, or another U.S. ally,” the order reads. “The Government does not explain how its stated interest would be undermined—or even impacted—by the Plaintiffs’ services to the OTP related to the ICC’s ongoing work in Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Afghanistan.”

Torresen goes on to say the plaintiffs’ “irreparable injury is presumed” due to the nature of a First Amendment claim. Here, the judge is essentially saying a violation of the free speech guarantee in the nation’s founding charter is a sufficient injury alone – and does not need to be extensively analyzed.

Notably, while the court notes the plaintiffs alleged Trump’s order “violates the First Amendment” and was in excess of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the court did not reach the IEEPA claim.

Finally, the judge balanced the equities – pitting the plaintiffs’ First Amendment injury against the defendant’s interest in “national security and foreign policy interests.” Again, the human rights advocates came out on top.

“I find the Government’s argument unpersuasive,” Torresen intones. “First, the Government has at least implied that injunctive relief is unnecessary because it does not intend to enforce the Executive Order against the Plaintiffs at all. It is hard to square that position with the Government’s assertion that an injunction would impede national security and foreign policy interests.”

In other words, the court says the government is trying to have things both ways by insisting they would never target the plaintiffs while also arguing an order barring them from going after the plaintiffs would be detrimental.

The court then returns to the factual record of the executive order’s stated goals and the plaintiff’s actual human rights work.

“Second, even putting that inconsistency aside, I find the Government’s argument unpersuasive for the same reasons that I find Section 3(a) fails intermediate scrutiny,” the order goes on. “The Government does not explain how the Plaintiffs’ continued services to the Prosecutor concerning atrocities in Bangladesh, Myanmar, or Afghanistan would impede national security and foreign policy interests concerning the United States and Israel.”

The court, in the end, barred the government from sanctioning the plaintiffs for their work with the ICC’s OTP.

“The Government is hereby enjoined from imposing civil or criminal penalties on the Plaintiffs under Executive Order 14203,” the order concludes.

New York Post: Nassau County will allow cops to wear face masks for ICE raids, undercover work: ‘We have their back’

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has carved out a key exemption to the county’s controversial mask ban — allowing local cops involved in ICE raids and working undercover to still wear face coverings.

The existing law only exempts public mask-wearing for religious or health reasons, but Blakeman’s new executive order now gives federal, state and local law-enforcement officers the option to wear masks during operations such as drug and gang raids and soon, immigration enforcement alongside ICE.

“Here in Nassau County, we respect our law enforcement officers,” Blakeman said at the signing inside the legislative building in Mineola on Friday. “And we have their back.” 

The executive order comes as Nassau is gearing up to fully launch its partnership with ICE. Ten detectives have been deputized for the work and are already trained and waiting for the green light.

Blakeman said the purpose of the order is to allow cops to mask up during certain police operations “when deemed necessary” to conceal their identity to “protect the integrity of their mission” and to limit any possibility of retaliation against them or their families.

The county executive first signed the mask ban into law in August, after the GOP-majority local legislature passed the bill in response to anti-Israel protests across college campuses. The law makes it a misdemeanor crime to wear any face covering unless for religious or health reasons, punishable by a $1,000 fine or up to a year in jail.

The law immediately sparked multiple lawsuits that have so far been unsuccessful at shutting it down, with courts citing the existing exemptions written within the legislation as valid.  

Blakeman’s executive order is effectively the opposite of a bill proposed Wednesday in neighboring New York City that would prevent any federal agents from wearing masks and other face coverings while on the job.

Blakeman said he signed his executive order with the city’s bill in mind — wanting to make clear that he will continue to be a partner in ICE’s operations in the area despite pushback from the state, the five boroughs and pending lawsuits from civil-rights groups. 

“I think they’re out of their mind,” Blakeman said about the city’s proposal. “I think that they will destroy the city, and I think they will make law enforcement in the metropolitan area, including Nassau County, much more difficult.” 

The suburb signed an agreement with ICE in February to deputize 10 detectives so they can work federally alongside ICE in helping detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

Nassau Democrats slammed Blakeman’s partnership with ICE and his executive order as politically motivated and called the carve-out for police an admission of guilt.

“This executive order is a quiet admission that his original law is most likely illegal,” Nassau County Legislator Delia DeRiggi-Whitton told The Post. “Democrats warned from Day One that Blakeman’s mask ban was vague, over-broad and more focused on politics than public good.

“We proposed a clear, constitutional alternative focused on actual criminal conduct. Instead, the county executive chose a political headline over sound policy, and now he’s scrambling to patch the consequences.”

Blakeman fired back, “What I find troubling is the very same people that criticized our mask law are the same people that are saying law enforcement officers in the performance of their duty can’t wear a mask to protect their identity if they’re involved in a sensitive investigation.” 

The county executive said the mask ban was never meant to target law enforcement but to deter agitators, who he previously called “cowards” and claimed were using face coverings to avoid accountability during protests.

This will come back to haunt them big time. Immigrants are clearly winners in public opinion — 79% pro-immigrant in latest Gallup poll.

Does Nassau County really want to have their very own masked Gestapo thugs terrorizing their citizens?

https://nypost.com/2025/07/13/us-news/nassau-county-will-allow-cops-to-wear-face-masks-for-ice-raids-undercover-work