Washington Post: Democrats are pushing back against crackdown on sanctuary cities

Some responded with strongly worded letters. Others spoke out publicly, accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors.

Democratic state and local officials are forcefully pushing back against threats from Attorney General Pam Bondi that their jurisdictions could be stripped of federal funding or they could face criminal prosecution if they don’t back away from “sanctuary” policies friendly toward suspected undocumented immigrants.

Bondi last week sent a letter to leaders of more than 30 Democratic-led cities, counties and states that accused the jurisdictions of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.

Some responded with their own strongly worded letters. Others seized the moment to speak out in a public show of resistance, accusing Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors amid the political divide over President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics.

But what happens next remains deeply unclear, according to those Democratic officials, who have described the events of the past week as startling and unprecedented, even against the backdrop of the tumultuous launch of the second Trump term. They are staying mum so far about how much they are coordinating with each other to combat potential actions by the administration.

In Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell (D), who is seeking a second term, told The Washington Post that the Aug. 13 letter from Bondi warned that his “jurisdiction” had been “identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement.” It did not reference his city by name, mention specific local laws or policy, or cite Seattle’s crime rates, which Harrell pointed out are “down in all major categories.”

Days later, he was standing behind Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), who had received a nearly identical letter.

“A letter like this cannot be normalized,” Ferguson said Tuesday, speaking to reporters at the state Capitol in Olympia. He called the attorney general’s threats a “breathtaking” tactic aimed at pressuring elected officials to “bend a knee” to Trump.

Ferguson told Bondi in a letter that his state “will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.”

On the opposite coast, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) stepped onto the plaza outside City Hall for a news conference that quickly took on the feel of an anti-Trump rally.

“Stop attacking our cities to hide your administration’s failures,” said Wu, the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. “Boston follows the law, and Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.”

The Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to identify and deport suspected undocumented immigrants include the deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in U.S. cities as they seek to meet a directive from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to make at least 3,000 arrests a day.

Bondi and other Trump administration officials have insisted on cooperation from state and local officials, including access to law enforcement facilities and, in some cases, officers as they seek to step up deportation efforts.

Trump last week ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to D.C. and has sought to expand federal control over D.C. police, claiming the city was not doing enough to stem violent crime. He has indicated that cities like Baltimore, Chicago and New York could be next, likening them to urban hellscapes ruined by crime and lawlessness. All three cities are listed as sanctuary jurisdictions on federal government websites.

On Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.

In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.

Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.

Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.

Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.

Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.

“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensive.”

In his letter to Bondi, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) questioned Bondi’s demand that he identify how he’s working to eliminate laws, policies and practices that she claimed impede federal immigration enforcement.

“In a democracy, governors do not unilaterally ‘eliminate laws.’ The role of the executive is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not to pick and choose which to follow,” wrote Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “In Minnesota, we take pride in following the law.”

New York Mayor Eric Adams, who promised to toughen immigration enforcement in his city after the Trump administration dropped corruption charges against him this spring, did not respond directly to Bondi’s letter. The task was passed on to the city’s corporation counsel, who sent a two-paragraph letter that said the city was not thwarting federal immigration policies but operating under a “system of federalism” that means states and cities do not have to undertake federal mandates.

Kayla Mamelak Altus, a spokeswoman for Adams, said the city was taking Trump’s threat to possibly target New York seriously and preparing for any scenario. But she declined to reveal what that playbook might look like.

In Washington, Ferguson, who previously served as the state’s attorney general before he was elected governor in November, said he had anticipated some dramatic action from the Trump administration. Late last year, before he was sworn into office, Ferguson spoke to state finance officials to determine how the state would fare fiscally if it lost federal funding, which makes up 28 percent of the budget.

But Ferguson did not anticipate Bondi’s threat to potentially prosecute him or any other elected official in the country over differences in policy. As attorney general, he had been the first to file a lawsuit over Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban visitors and refugees from several predominantly Muslim countries.

On Tuesday, Ferguson recalled trying to reassure his 8-year-old daughter at the time, who worried something might happen to him for challenging Trump.

“I remember telling her … ‘We’re lucky to live in a country right where your dad, or any American, can speak out against the president, where your dad can file a lawsuit against the president, say things that are pretty direct about the president, be critical,’” Ferguson recalled.

It was something they shouldn’t take for granted, he told her, because in other countries people could get sent to jail for something like that.

Eight years later, Ferguson said he didn’t know what he would say to his daughter now of that freedom to challenge a president. “Maybe I’m not so sure about that,” the governor said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/22/sanctuary-cities-bondi

Also here without the paywall:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/democrats-are-pushing-back-against-crackdown-on-sanctuary-cities/ar-AA1L119n

DC News Now: Dozens unite at ‘Defend the District’ rally amid increased federal patrols

Community organizers and residents gathered on U Street Thursday for a rally aimed at uniting neighbors and pushing back against what they see as an excessive show of force.

“While we are enduring what we’re enduring with the surge in feds, we can utilize this moment to uplift the community, to have our voice heard,” said Justin Yaddiya Johnson, who helped organize the “Defend D.C.” rally.

As the evening continued, crowds grew larger, with advocates sharing messages of resilience while the sounds of go-go music filled the street.

“People cannot live in fear, and that’s what I see our community doing right now… So we have to continue to curate these spaces, so they can feel safe,” said Johnson.

The protests come as Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that since Trump expanded the federal presence in D.C., authorities have made 630 arrests and seized 86 guns.

But many at the rally said more police power isn’t the solution.

“I think if he was really concerned about crime, he would invest in DC in ways we’ve been crying for forever. Invest in public education… And that more black and brown people have access to good-paying jobs,” said Marcus Bachelor.

“All these troops in the street, ICE, DEA, FBI and all those short letters they need to go,” another added.

D.C. Councilmember Robert White also raised concerns. “This is an important moment for DC and for our country; the president is trying to militarize D.C.”

President Donald Trump planned on joining the National Guard and D.C. police on patrol Thursday night, drawing both attention and criticism as federal enforcement ramps up in the District.

“People have to be strategic. The president wants a reaction from people in D.C. We cannot give it to him,” said White.

Still, organizers emphasized that the night was about solutions, not just protest.

“I don’t want to continue to feed the problem; I want to find solutions, and today is day one,” Johnson said.

https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/washington-dc/dozens-unite-at-defend-the-district-rally-amid-increased-federal-patrols

Alternet: Trucking industry in shambles as Trump crackdown threatens supply chains

Newsweek reports a trade group representing the trucking industry is supporting Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s pause of work visas for immigrant truckers, despite the halt potentially aggravating work shortages in the U.S. trucking industry.

Rubio’s announcement followed a fatal crash on a Florida highway earlier this month involving a trucker from India who officials confirmed was in the country illegally. Newsweek reports preliminary findings by the Department of Transportation (DOT) revealed the driver failed assessments on his English language proficiency and his understanding of U.S. highway traffic rules.

Rubio did not reference the fatal accident at the time of his announcement, reports Newsweek, but did claim in a post on X that the increasing number of foreign truckers was “endangering American lives and undercutting the livelihoods of American truckers.”

In a statement released Thursday, Chris Spear, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), said his group supported the move, and that the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) “needs serious scrutiny, including the enforcement of entry-level driver training standards.”

“At a minimum, we need better accounting of how many non-domiciled CDLs are being issued, which is why we applaud Transportation Secretary Duffy for launching a nationwide audit in June upon our request,” Spear told Newsweek. “… We also believe a surge in enforcement of key regulations — including motor carrier compliance — is necessary to prevent bad actors from operating on our nation’s highways, and we’ll continue to partner with federal and state authorities to identify where those gaps in enforcement exist.”

Industry reporters claims many employed in the trucking industry supported Trump for president.

As part of his crackdown on immigration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Duffy to tighten regulations on English proficiency for commercial drivers in April, despite English language requirements already being included in federal regulations.

In February, trucking industry newsletter Matrack reported The U.S. trucking industry faces a severe driver shortage, “with a projected shortfall of 160,000 by 2030, disrupting supply chains and increasing costs.” It added that the aging workforce and CDL licensing challenges, combined with low pay, health concerns and high turnover, plague the industry.

“Long-haul trucking has a turnover rate of over 90 percent in large companies, reported Matrack. “This means that almost every driver in the industry will leave their job within a year. Long hours, stressful working conditions, and time away from home make the job unattractive.”

Labor Department data said that the number of foreign-born truckers in the U.S. comprise around 18 percent of the total workforce, said Newsweek.

Read the Newsweek report at this link.

https://www.alternet.org/trump-trucking-supporters

Another Bullshit ‘Assaulting An ICE Officer’ Case Falls Apart In Front Of A Grand JuryPlease expect delivery within the day.

The number of assaults on ICE officers was always going to increase. There’s no way it wouldn’t, not when ICE was sending out a task force composed of multiple federal law enforcement agencies daily to multiple locations in the United States, hoping to finally hit the baseline number of 3,000 arrests per day by Stephen Miller.

A massive increase in interactions was bound to result in an increase in alleged assaults. The surprising fact, however, was that the increase was so low. To hear the DHS tell it, ICE officers are being beaten to the ground daily, with spokespeople constantly posting eye-popping stats like a 690% increase in assaults. (Since then, the percentage has increased to nearly 1000%.)

But all that really meant — when the DHS decided to finally be honest about it — was that there had been 69 more assaults this year as compared to last year (79 to 10). And when you have the actual numbers, this supposed “war on ICE” looks more like ICE officers complaining a bit more than they did last year.

Well, ICE officers brought it on themselves. Their insistence on wearing masks, stripping themselves of identifying badges, driving unmarked vehicles, hanging around in courtroom hallways, chasing day laborers across Home Deport parking lots, lurking in rented moving vans, etc. all but ensured there would be the occasional violent reaction to the sudden appearance of masked kidnappers who somehow can’t manage to obtain the occasional judicial warrant.

The DHS is relying on its ever-increasing percentage to sell this skewed narrative. Unfortunately for ICE, DHS, and the DOJ, the narrative isn’t holding up in court. Not only are ICE’s tactics being shut down by federal courts, DOJ prosecutors can’t even sneak bullshit charges past grand juries — entities that are normally extremely receptive of the one-sided presentations made by government lawyers.

Late last month, the DOJ issued a press release touting one of its latest wins: the charging of DC resident Sydney Reid with assaulting ICE officers. DC US attorney, former Fox talking head Jeanine Pirro, made the announcement, using these words to describe what (allegedly) occurred during this so-called altercation:

The FBI agent was assisting two ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers outside the jail when Reid walked up close to the officers and started recording video. After multiple commands to step back, Reid tried to go around the ERO officers, placing herself between FBI agents and one of the suspects being transferred into their custody.

As Reid tried to impede the transfer, one of the ERO officers pushed her against the wall and told her to stop. Reid continued to struggle and fight with the officer. The FBI agent tried to help the officer control Reid who was flailing her arms and kicking. During Reid’s active resistance to being detained, the FBI agent’s hand was injured from striking and scraping the cement wall causing lacerations while the FBI agent was assisting ICE ERO officers.

LOL. Arm “flailing” is apparently assault, especially if an officer manages to injure themselves during the incident. This was enough for the DOJ to move forward with an attempt to secure an indictment from a grand jury. But it couldn’t even do that because the government seemingly isn’t interested in actually proving its case in court — not even in front of a court that only needs to see probable cause, rather than the much higher “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used by criminal courts.

Reid was charged with an enhanced felony assault charge, supposedly due to her “infliction of bodily injury” on the FBI agent who hurt themself while “assisting” ICE in arresting a person who began her interaction by doing nothing more harmful than simply filming them with her phone.

The DOJ has tried to indict Reid twice for this supposed “assault.” It has now failed twice, as WUSA9 reports.

Federal prosecutors twice sought a grand jury indictment against a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE inmate transfer — and were twice rejected, the U.S. Attorney’s Office admitted in court Thursday.

Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey revealed the denials to attorneys for Sydney Lori Reid and later granted their request to remove all bond conditions and release her on her own recognizance over prosecutors’ objections.

I’m sure someone will try to pretend these are the actions of an “activist” judge who shouldn’t be allowed to handle cases brought by this particular administration.

But the details show it’s the government that’s mostly inert, apparently assuming all it has to do is show up in front of a grand jury to obtain an indictment. Almost zero effort was made here, which makes the double-denial completely understandable:

Federal prosecutors declined to call the injured FBI agent or any of the ICE officers involved in the incident during Thursday’s hearing, however. Instead, they had an investigator with the U.S. Attorney’s Office testify about his review of video of the incident and brief conversations with the officers. The investigator, Special Agent Sean Ricardi, said he’d had no involvement in the case until he was asked to prepare for testimony Thursday morning.

When the government says “it’s our word against yours,” that’s generally enough to make people understand they’re already going up against a stacked deck. When the government fails (repeatedly, in recent weeks) to secure indictments even when it’s their word against no one’s, it’s clear the government actually has no case to present.

It would be nice to see a revised percentage from the DHS that only utilizes sustained assault allegations that result in an indictment or conviction. But we’ll never see that sort of honesty from this administration, which relies almost solely on misrepresentations of goddamn everything to push its narratives forward. There’s a war on Americans going on here, led by a super-charged ICE. But all the most powerful people can do is play the victim while trying to bully reality into better alignment with its bullshit narratives.

Newsweek: US military action against Mexican cartels could backfire, experts warn

Experts on U.S.-Mexico relations have told Newsweek that reported plans by the Trump administration for potential military operations against cartels in Mexico would be condemned as an act of aggression that could have disastrous unintended consequences — while also “fundamentally misdiagnosing” how the groups operate.

The reported plans, first revealed by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, are set to be ready for mid-September, and would involve action on Mexican soil at the direction of President Donald Trump.

“Absent Mexican consent, any military action in Mexico will be condemned, I believe justifiably, as an act of aggression in violation of the most basic provision of the UN Charter and customary international law,” Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech School of Law, told Newsweek.

“The U.S. will undoubtedly assert it is acting pursuant to the inherent right of self-defense. But that right is only applicable in response to an actual or imminent armed attack, not on activities of a non-state group that cause harm to the nation, which I believe is the case.”

The increased enforcement action would come after the Trump administration classified select cartels and transnational criminal gangs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in February. The president has long argued that the U.S. needed to be firmer in how it dealt with the groups, widely seen as the driving force feeding the cross-border drug trade.

Sending a Message

When Newsweek asked the Department of Defense about the report, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon‘s spokesperson, reaffirmed the president’s FTO designation and the belief that the groups are a “direct threat” to national security.

“These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe– that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs,” Parnell said.

Klippenstein’s report is not the first to detail potential military action, however, with the U.S. moving personnel into the seas around Mexico and Latin America in recent weeks.

“On the practical level, we have to clarify what ‘military action’ means. One could think of drone strikes on infrastructure, but fentanyl production and trafficking in Mexico is highly fragmented—small networks, labs inside houses in cities like Culiacán. Drone strikes there would be complicated and dangerous,” David Mora, senior analyst for Mexico at International Crisis Group, told Newsweek Thursday.

“If it were instead a deployment of U.S. troops to capture or eliminate a criminal leader, Trump might sell it as a victory. It would sound good and grab headlines, but it would be an empty victory. History shows that this strategy does not solve drug trafficking or organized crime.

“On the contrary, it increases violence. Even the Department of Justice and the DEA have admitted this.”

Military Action Could Backfire on the Border

When the FTO designation was first signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, policy experts raised concerns about the unintended consequences the move could have, particularly around immigration.

While Trump has all but shut down the southern border with Mexico, one critic said branding cartels as terrorist organizations could lead to stronger claims for asylum – a concern echoed by Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, the head of the North American Observatory at Global Initiative Against Transational Organized Crime.

“It is mutually exclusive from the border and migration objectives the administration has. Evidence shows that violence drives internal displacement,” Farfán-Méndez told Newsweek. “U.S. military action in Mexico, and potential responses by criminal groups in Mexico, could generate displacement of communities.

“As with other episodes of violence and displacement, it is not unthinkable these communities migrate to the border and seek asylum in the US. This prevents the orderly migration process the Trump administration has sought.”

All three experts Newsweek spoke with raised concerns about the viability and constitutionality of making such moves, when cartels have not necessarily carried out a coordinated attack on the U.S. that could be defined as military action that would require like-for-like retaliation.

Farfán-Méndez said she believed there was a misdiagnosis on the part of the White House regarding how criminal gangs operate, explaining that the drug trade was not “three men hiding in the Sierra Madre that you can target and eliminate”, and that there were actors working in concert on both sides of the border.

U.S. Sentencing Commission data for 2024 backed that up, showing 83.5 percent of those sentenced for fentanyl trafficking within the U.S. were American citizens, rather than foreign nationals.

Sheinbaum Could Be Political Victim

The experts also questioned how operations could affect the relationship between the U.S. and its southern neighbor, where President Claudia Sheinbaum has been clear publicly in her efforts to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs across the border while managing her relationship with Washington over other issues like trade.

“Mexico has always had less leverage,” Mora said. “If during Sheinbaum’s government there were any kind of unilateral U.S. action, it would be extremely politically sensitive. In Mexico, any unilateral action is equal to invasion.

“Imagine the slogan: being the president under whom the United States invaded Mexico again. Politically, it would be almost the end for her.”

For the Trump administration, which came into office in January promising strong border security and the end of fentanyl trafficking into the U.S., the likelihood of stronger actions on cartels appears clear, if the methods and strategy are less so.

Parnell told Newsweek that taking action against cartels, at the president’s directive, required a “whole-of-government effort and thorough coordination with regional partners” to eliminate the abilities of cartels to “threaten the territory, safety, and security” of the U.S.

Corn said any use of military force against the cartels would ultimately do more harm than good.

“I think this also is consistent with a trend we are seeing: when you think your best tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail,” the lawyer said. “This administration seems determined to expand the use of military power for all sorts of what it designates as ’emergencies.’ But this is fundamentally not a problem amenable to military attack.”

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-plans-military-action-mexico-cartels-2117318

NBC News: Judge rules ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ can stay open but halts construction and bars new detainees

Within 60 days, the facility must also remove “all generators, gas, sewage, and other waste and waste receptacles,” which calls into question how it would operate.

A federal judge in Miami ruled Thursday that “Alligator Alcatraz,” the contested migrant detention facility in the Florida Everglades, can remain operational for now but that it cannot be expanded and no additional detainees can be brought in.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered a preliminary injunction to prevent the installation of any additional industrial-style lighting and any site expansion. Her ruling further prevents “bringing any additional persons … who were not already being detained at the site at the time of this order.”

The ruling was filed late Thursday, allowing the injunction that was requested over National Environmental Policy Act violations.

Within 60 days, “and once the population attrition allows for safe implementation of this Order,” the facility must also remove “all generators, gas, sewage, and other waste and waste receptacles that were installed to support this project,” the 82-page ruling said.

It must also remove additional lighting that was installed for the detention facility. Light pollution was a hot topic during the hearings this month.

It’s unclear how the facility will remain operational if those resources are removed.

The government must also remove temporary fencing installed to allow Native American tribe members access to the site consistent with the access they had before the facility was erected.

The defense has appealed the ruling, court records show.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to requests for comment. The offices of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Division of Emergency Management also didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Williams’ decision came down the same day a temporary construction freeze she previously issued expired and after a four-day hearing over environmental concerns about the facility’s location in the sensitive wetlands.

Williams had issued a temporary restraining order this month to temporarily halt operations over a lawsuit alleging the detention facility’s construction skirted environmental laws. That ruling meant no filling, paving or installation of additional infrastructure was allowed, but it didn’t affect the center’s immigration enforcement activity.

A ‘major victory’

The environmental groups that sued demanding an injunction celebrated the ruling in a joint statement late Thursday as “a major victory for Florida’s imperiled wildlife and fragile ecosystems which are threatened by the detention center.”

“Today’s decision means the facility must wind down operations in an orderly fashion within 60 days,” the statement said, saying the center posed a threat to the Everglades ecosystem, endangered species, clean water and dark night skies.

“The state and federal government paved over 20 acres of open land, built a parking lot for 1,200 cars and 3,000 detainees, placed miles of fencing and high-intensity lighting on site and moved thousands of detainees and contractors onto land in the heart of the Big Cypress National Preserve, all in flagrant violation of environmental law,” said Paul Schwiep, counsel for Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity. “We proved our case and are pleased that the court has issued a preliminary injunction against this travesty”

Thursday’s “preliminary injunction will remain in place while the lawsuit challenging the detention center is heard,” the statement said.

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida also praised the ruling Thursday.

“This is not our first fight for our land and rights. The Miccosukee Tribe remains steadfast in our commitment to protect our ancestral lands in Big Cypress from development as a permanent detention facility,” Chairman Talbert Cypress said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure that the government does not dodge its legal requirements for environmental review on seized public lands, sacred to our people.”

“When it comes to our homeland, there is no compromise,” he added.

Environmental outcry

Environmental groups and Native Americans had protested the construction of the site, which is part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, because of the Everglades’ delicate and unique ecosystem, which is home to endangered and threatened species.

Environmental groups sued in June to stop the facility, which opened in July on an airstrip in Ochopee’s Big Cypress National Preserve.

The suit said that the center was built without ecological reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act and without public notice or comment and that the government failed to comply with other state and federal statutes, including the Endangered Species Act.

The Trump administration downplayed the environmental concerns and argued that the facility was necessary because voters want the federal government to curb illegal immigration.

Schwiep, the attorney, said in court Aug. 13 that the “suggestion there is no environmental impact is absurd.”

“So why here? There are runways elsewhere. … Why the jetport in this area?” Schweip asked. “Alligator Alcatraz. A name just meant to sound ominous. I would submit, judge, this is just a public relations stunt.”

Significance to Miccosukee Tribe

On Aug. 12, the court heard from Amy Castaneda, director of water resources for the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. Castaneda said that she has worked with the tribe for 19 years and that the entrance to the jetport where the facility is built is a quarter-mile from the tribe’s land.

Asked what the Everglades land means to the Miccosukee tribe, she replied, “It’s written into the constitution to protect the Everglades because the Everglades protected them when they were hunted by the government.”

Castaneda said that for nearly two decades, there has been “minimal” activity at the jetport but that that changed after June with the construction of the detention facility.

“There’s much more activity there, vehicles going in and out, cars usually isolated on the southside of Tamiami Trail taking photos with the sign. Tankers, protesters, media, people setting up tents to sell merch for Alligator Alcatraz. Just different levels,” she said.

Castaneda said no one from the federal government, the state or any other governmental entity contacted the tribe about the construction.

She said water resources officials for the tribe have collected samples downstream from the facility to test and determine whether there has been a nutrient shift or potential health concerns.

Marcel Bozas, the director of fish and wildlife for the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, also testified Aug. 12, noting the airstrip is a couple of miles from the tribe’s sites.

While tribal members can’t access the airstrip, some trails are no longer accessible. Asked about the impact of hunting on the land, Bozas said, “Tribal members are concerned the wildlife they could be formerly hunting for are no longer in that area.” There’s also concern that medicinal plants are affected.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-rules-alligator-alcatraz-florida-no-new-detainees-rcna224550

MSNBC: ‘It’s disturbing’: Trump faces backlash as ICE arrests go viral across the country

Raw Story: ‘Resignations seem likely’: Economist predicts investigation of Trump’s $600 billion fail

President Donald Trump’s administration has published the terms of the trade deal with the European Union, but some of the promises Trump claimed were coming didn’t materialize after all, according to one economics expert.

University of Michigan economics and public policy professor Justin Wolfers wrote on X that after perusing the deal, he discovered Trump’s promise of $600 billion being sent to the U.S. from the E.U. isn’t on the list.

“The most important thing is what’s not there. Trump had boasted, ‘They gave me $600 billion, and that’s a gift.’ But guess what? They didn’t. He didn’t get a penny,” wrote Wolfers. “Bottom line: The final text of the EU-US trade deal delivers $5,000 less to the average American household than the handshake agreement Trump boasted of on August 5.”

“I expect there will be soul-searching, an investigation, and recriminations, as the White House explores how its negotiators fell $600 billion short of the deal the president thought he had struck. Resignations seem likely, and a re-think of the entire deal-making apparatus,” Wolfers added.

The deal mapped out on July 28 promised, “The EU will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.”

It explained, “The EU will invest $600 billion in the United States over the course of President Trump’s term. This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion EU companies already invest in the United States every year.”

It appeared again toward the end of the July 28 plan: “The deal bolsters America’s economy and manufacturing capabilities. The EU will purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.”

The Aug. 21 deal changes the language significantly, shifting from a commitment to phrases like “make new investments” and “invest,” and now saying things like they’re “expected to invest.”

“In this context, European companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028,” the document says, removing the firm commitment. “This investment reflects the European Union’s strong commitment to the transatlantic partnership and its recognition of the United States as the most secure and innovative destination for foreign investment,” the new deal says.

The deal can be read here.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-eu-trade-deal-resignations

Newsweek: ICE pushes to deport double amputee in US since age 2 after over 40 years

Rodney Taylor, 46, who came to the United States from Liberia at age 2 for medical treatment, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in January and is awaiting a judge’s decision on whether he will be deported.

Newsweek confirmed in the ICE detainee tracker that Taylor is currently held at the Stewart Detention Center in Georgia.

Newsweek reached out to ICE for comment via email on Thursday.

Why It Matters

Taylor’s detention and potential deportation come amid an immigration crackdown under the Trump administration, with the president having pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. However, Taylor was arrested by ICE days before President Donald Trump‘s second term began.

Immigrants residing in the country both illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas, as well as those with criminal histories, have been detained. Many with past convictions, even from decades ago, have found themselves in ICE custody despite spending years without facing serious immigration problems. Some detainees have reported being held in inhumane and harsh conditions.

What To Know

Taylor came to the United States from Liberia as a child on a medical visa after losing both legs, according to Atlanta news station 11Alive. He has never returned to Liberia and was never granted U.S. citizenship.

On January 15, just five days before Trump took office, ICE agents, with guns reportedly drawn, arrested Taylor, his fiancée, Mildred Pierre told Fox 5 Atlanta. Taylor worked as a barber in Gwinnett County and is the father of seven children.

Taylor was arrested for burglary when he was 16, although he was later pardoned by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole in 2010.

“I thought I had a pardon from the state. It was all behind me in the past. They brought it up, and it was shocking to me,” Taylor told Fox 5 from his Stewart Detention Center cell in June. The center is owned by CoreCivic.

11Alive reported that state pardons don’t necessarily apply under federal immigration law, and this one did not meet the necessary thresholds for relief from deportation.

The news station said that Taylor applied for legal permanent status three times, but due to his juvenile conviction, the applications were denied. His family members are U.S. citizens living in America, according to 11Alive.

Pierre told 11Alive this month that Taylor’s August 12 hearing would be his final immigration hearing. Fox 5 reported that earlier this year, Taylor was held without proper medical care, with his prosthetics rubbing against him constantly.

What People Are Saying

Taylor’s fiancée, Mildred Pierre, told Fox 5 Atlanta: “There’s a truck that blocked me from the back, two cars come in the front, guns drawn, ‘Get out the car, get out the car.’ My kids were in the back crying. We didn’t know what was going on. It was like a scene from a movie.”

Sarah Owings, Taylor’s attorney, told Fox 5 Atlanta: “Mr. Taylor has a conviction, that’s true, but it was pardoned. It was pardoned, and moreover, he was only sentenced to probation and time served. He should not be subject to this type of detention. ICE has the ability to release all of them at their discretion.”

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a previous statement shared with Newsweek: “Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump’s and the American people’s mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens to make America safe. Secretary Noem unleashed ICE to target the worst of the worst and carry out the largest deportation operation of criminal aliens in American history.”

What Happens Next

A judge has less than a month to decide whether Taylor will remain in the United States or be deported. His fiancée fears he could die if sent back to Liberia, citing his medical condition and the lack of resources there.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-pushes-deport-double-amputee-us-over-40-years-2117336

Axios: Trump threatens “harsh measures” against Colorado if Tina Peters is not freed from prison

President Trump is once again demanding that Colorado officials “free” former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters from prison, this time adding a threat to “take harsh measures” if she is not let go.

Why it matters: The remark, made Thursday on his Truth Social platform, is the latest attempt by Trump to intervene on behalf of Peters, one of the nation’s most prominent 2020 election deniers.

What he’s saying: Trump called Peters “a brave and innocent Patriot who has been tortured by Crooked Colorado politicians” and criticized the state’s mail-in ballot elections.

  • He added that Peters, 69, “is an old woman, and very sick.”

Reality check: Federal authorities cannot overturn a state court conviction, raising questions about the premise of Trump’s threat.

Yes, but: The administration could target Colorado by withholding federal funds or pursuing legal action regarding the state’s immigration laws.

Catch up quick: Last October, a Colorado judge sentenced Peters to 8 ½ years and six months in jail after a jury found her guilty on seven of 10 counts related to her role in tampering with county voting equipment after the 2020 election.

The latest: In July, Peters asked a federal court to free her on bond while she appeals her conviction, arguing that the state is trying to silence her in violation of her First Amendment rights.

  • U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak rejected the motion, saying there’s no legal precedent for granting her request.

The other side: Mesa County District Attorney Daniel P. Rubinstein, a Republican who prosecuted Peters, said earlier this year that politics did not play into her case.

  • “Ms. Peters was indicted by a grand jury of her peers, and convicted at trial by the jury of her peers that she selected,” Rubinstein told the Associated Press in a statement.

https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2025/08/21/trump-threat-colorado-tina-peters